Jonathan Nieder: > Presumably soon we will know whether > == is to be part of the "test" builtin in POSIX or is going to be > allowed in "[[" only.
I presume you mean "required", not "allowed". POSIX already allows "==" (several POSIX shells currently implement it), it's just not *required* in test/[. Which means there's no need to wait; "==" can be added as an aid to users, whether or not it's in POSIX (yet). It's not clear to me that "[[" will be added. That was proposed early on as an idea, but to my knowledge one was proposed any specific text to actually *do* that, and it was rejected last time. On the other hand, "==" has already been proposed, and most of the discussion seemed to think it reasonable. Dan Muresan: > ...the crusade against "bashisms" has broken so many scripts and wasted so > many man-hours for Debian / Ubuntu users. Right. Many existing scripts depend on "==", not "=", and its implementation is trivial. --- David A. Wheeler -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dash" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
