On Sunday, July 10, 2011 21:03:54 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Chris Rees 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".
in addition to that, the braces only get expanded if the usage warrants it.
so if the braces are quoted, or dont follow the simple syntax, the braces get
passed through like any other char.
$ echo {0..10
{0..10
$ echo '{0..10}'
{0..10}
i doubt many scripts will hit this
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
