On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 10 July 2011 11:04, Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > So... do we need a separate ash and hush if ash doesn't need to be > sh-compatible? I don't want to start a flamewar, but I think that > portability is very important, and adding strange extensions means > that people use code that breaks on other platforms, as you well know > from the latest patches to gen_build.sh. > > Can we still call it ash if it doesn't behave like ash? > > Also, what about scripts that don't expect { to be a special > character, what happens then?
This is why there's "set -B". The defautl in bash is to enable brace expansion for interactive shells (where standards supposedly don't matter) and disable it for non-interactive ones (e.g. running scripts). But you can override it either way with "set -B" or "set +B". Busybox ash/hush could do the same if anyone cares. Obviously neither should break interpretation of scripts in the default config. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox