Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
> 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.)
This is not the problem.
The problem would be if there is deviating behavior only between the shells
that are closer to POSIX and yash/posh, it may be a good idea not to mark the
specific behavior as "unspecified" in the standard.
It also would make sense to check with shells have maintainers that are on this
list and willing to come to a common agreement. From what I can say, the
authors of
bash
bosh
mksh
ksh
are on this list.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
