Greg Wooledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You don't have to perform a separate check for an "empty item list". This > is perfectly valid, and will do nothing: > > words="" > for i in $words; do echo hello, world; done > > If Solaris's shell is giving any output or errors from the commands above, > then it's crap. (Which means autoconf would have to work around it.) > > For Joerg: the fact that Solaris does NOT put its POSIX-compliant shell > in /bin/sh is a source of unending pain. Since you can't use > > #!PATH=`getconf PATH`; sh > > in a script, it's useless in real life. Real scripts have to put SOMETHING > on the shebang line, and the only thing we can use is > > #!/bin/sh > > Gods, how I wish POSIX had mandated something like "posix-shell"....
You still have to learn a lot on standards.... There have been at least 3 attempts to standardize #!xxxx in order to find a way to distribute POSIX compliant shell scripts. It was not possible to find a way to do this without breaking POSIX. The fact that Solaris still has a Bourne shell in /bin/sh is no POSIX noncompliance but rather something that helps with backwards compatgibility. Note that ksh93 is not compatible to the Bourne Shell. Platforms that change /bin/sh fro the Bourne shell to something else just do not care about their customers.... Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]