Paul wrote:
> 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.
Sounds like a plan.
David
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.
>
>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:09:38 -0400, Ken Hornstein said:
> 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
>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
Paul wrote:
> I only used the backticks because they'd already
> been used in that script, and I couldn't remember how strict we were
> being about our build environment.
I vote to stay with backticks. We've maintained (or at least tried to
maintain) Bourne shell throughout the rest of nmh, and
john wrote:
> On 3/23/2021 5:26 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> > Date:Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:28:24 -0400
> > From:Paul Fox
> > Message-ID: <20210323122824.e92ca5180...@grass.foxharp.boston.ma.us>
> >
> >| Are we allowed to use $(...) instead of `...` ?
> >
> > I
On 3/23/2021 5:26 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:28:24 -0400
From:Paul Fox
Message-ID: <20210323122824.e92ca5180...@grass.foxharp.boston.ma.us>
| Are we allowed to use $(...) instead of `...` ?
I would. I cannot imagine any shell anyone is
Date:Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:28:24 -0400
From:Paul Fox
Message-ID: <20210323122824.e92ca5180...@grass.foxharp.boston.ma.us>
| Are we allowed to use $(...) instead of `...` ?
I would. I cannot imagine any shell anyone is likely to really use
which doesn't support
david wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > I believe my script changes are "old shell" compatible, if not
> > "ancient shell" compatible. I get the same output if I run it with
> > either "bash --posix" or "ash".
>
> grep -A is a GNU-ism. Maybe something like sed -n '/.SH NAME/{n;p;}'
> would
