ken wrote: > >I vote to stay with backticks. We've maintained (or at least tried to > >maintain) Bourne shell throughout the rest of nmh, and I think we > >should keep it that way. > > Officially, $(...) is part of POSIX; it's not a Bash-ism. > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html
And, in fact, it was part of the POSIX.2 standard of 1994, 27 years ago: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009656399/toc.pdf (p.36) > > We USED to use $(...) in the test suite. But that was dropped because > it turns out that /bin/sh on Solaris does not support that (at least, that > was my memory). I am neutral about whether or not we should continue > to support ancient shells. I suspect anyone still running Solaris has long ago figured out how to deal with "modern" shell features creeping into their ecosystem. But how old, exactly, does a Solaris system need to be to not be running a POSIX compliant shell? I'm fine with not relying on GNU-isms, and I think we should avoid the cutting edge in general, but in this case, I think we can take a step forward. If we get complaints, I'll be happy to revert to backticks. paul =---------------------- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.0 degrees)