On Sep 08, Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Current practice is to support bash and dash. Efforts are made to > support posh too because this seems like the easiest way to ensure > that a script satisfies 10.4 as it is currently written. I do not think that this correctly describes reality, as there are many people who are not willing to support posh in their packages, on the ground of it being an useless exercise in blind adherence to a standard and not representative of real world shells. Writing portable shell scripts is useful, and writing scripts which can be run by a shell faster than bash is useful too. There is no use in writing POSIX-compatible scripts just because you feel like doing it. -- ciao, | Marco | [7874 deoFGcZ2L2f1Y]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature