On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/27/2012 07:09 AM, Jon Seymour wrote:
>
>> I understand that the behaviour is unspecitied by POSIX - I didn't
>> know that before, but I know that now - thanks.
>>
>> That said, from the point of view of promoting interoperable scripts,
>>
On 05/27/2012 07:09 AM, Jon Seymour wrote:
> I understand that the behaviour is unspecitied by POSIX - I didn't
> know that before, but I know that now - thanks.
>
> That said, from the point of view of promoting interoperable scripts,
> my view is that it (in an ideal world**) would be better if
On 05/27/2012 01:15 AM, Jon Seymour wrote:
> Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
> operator when running in POSIX mode?
Because POSIX doesn't forbid extensions. Furthermore, POSIX is
considering the standardization of ==:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=375
at
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> ... Bash
> just modifies conflicting features to the minimal extent necessary to bring it
> into compliance, which seems to be the path of least resistance.
>
Sure. I understand that this is a reasonable philosophy given that
aiming for comple
> POSIX hasn't provided a way to validate whether a script
> only uses features that are required to be supported by POSIX
> compliant interpreters.
I believe that was someone else's point, but yes that would be a problem for
anyone who wanted to implement compliance check warnings.
> even if ba
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jon Seymour wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Jon Seymour
> ** I guess I can except that current bash behaviour is, on balance,
except -> accept
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jon Seymour writes:
>
>> As it stands, I can't use bash's POSIX mode to verify the validity or
>> otherwise of a POSIX script because bash won't report these kinds of
>> errors - even when running in POSIX mode.
>
> You can't do that anyway
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 08:45:46 PM Jon Seymour wrote:
>> On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge wrote:
>>
>> I guess the question is better phrased thus: what use case is usefully
> served by having bash's POSIX mode support a superset of test o
Jon Seymour writes:
> As it stands, I can't use bash's POSIX mode to verify the validity or
> otherwise of a POSIX script because bash won't report these kinds of
> errors - even when running in POSIX mode.
You can't do that anyway: POSIX mode does not disable proper extensions
to POSIX, only th
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 08:45:46 PM Jon Seymour wrote:
> On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge wrote:
>
> > 2012/5/27 Jon Seymour :
> >> Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
> >> operator when running in POSIX mode?
> >
> > POSIX does not say == is not allowed.
> >
> > P
On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge wrote:
> 2012/5/27 Jon Seymour :
>> Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
>> operator when running in POSIX mode?
>
> POSIX does not say == is not allowed.
>
> POSIX tells you what the shell should at least be able to do. A POSIX
> co
2012/5/27 Jon Seymour :
> Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
> operator when running in POSIX mode?
POSIX does not say == is not allowed.
POSIX tells you what the shell should at least be able to do. A POSIX
compliant shell can have whatever other features it likes, as
Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
operator when running in POSIX mode?
This is problematic because use of test == in scripts that should be
POSIX isn't getting caught when I run them under bash's POSIX mode.
The scripts then fail when run under dash which seems to be s
13 matches
Mail list logo
