Re: Bug#270868: Should not implement "test" builtin

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>]

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 17:33, Clint Adams wrote:
> What would be a good reason to enforce the use of an "impoverished
> 'test'"?


Actually, since I wrote that I have read the reasons you gave in a reply
to another message: you said that test -a and test -o are implemented
differently in different shells (different rules of precedence).  I
wasn't aware of that.  That, I think, is a good reason to avoid the use
of these options in a script that is meant to be portable.  Please close
270868 or mark it 'wontfix'.

There remains the policy bug but that can be discussed in the other
thread.

--
Thomas Hood