On 1/27/13 3:55 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> ---
> Excellent point -- then what is the point of POSIX compatibility?
To provide a useful subset of all the shell language features that can be
used to write scripts portable between shells that offer that feature set.
> Considering that there seems
On 1/26/13 3:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I noted on the bash man page that it says it will start in posix compliance
> mode when started as 'sh' (/bin/sh).
While that's true, I think you're not reading far enough about posix mode.
The man page and description of `set -o posix' say:
"Change the be
Clark WANG wrote:
I think every POSIX compatible shell has its own extensions so there's
no guarantee that a script which works fine in shell A would still work
in shell B even if both A and B are POSIX compatible unless the script
writer only uses POSIX compatible features. Is there a pure
On Sunday 27 January 2013 03:22:35 Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:52 AM, John Kearney wrote:
> > Am 27.01.2013 01:37, schrieb Clark WANG:
> >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >>> I noted on the bash man page that it says it will start in posix
> >>> complia
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:52 AM, John Kearney wrote:
> Am 27.01.2013 01:37, schrieb Clark WANG:
>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> I noted on the bash man page that it says it will start in posix
>>> compliance mode when started as 'sh' (/bin/sh).
>>>
>>> What does that
