To get away from the dick waving "my shell is bigger than yours" discussions for a minute ...
In note 3745 attached to http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 Joerg Schilling proposes making a list of shells to use to help guide what can be regarded as "standard" for the purposes of compliance. In that he said ... First, I believe that "yash" and "posh" should not be in that list because these implementations are too buggy or have unexplained deviations with which I don't agree. First, because any existing deviations with the standard aren't really (or at least, necessarily) relevant when considering some new issue, and second if a shell (any shell) does not behave as expected (or desired) and that is generally agreed to be a bug (or even an unexplained deviation) then for that issue, that shell is simply discounted (or it could even be regarded as supporting the proposed standard if the implementor intends to fix that shell.) What matters is what users will actually see, what they can count on. And for that, the shells that don't measure up to someone's private view of what is important are just as relevant as the others. kre
