On Tue, Jun 17, at 01:57 Tony Mechelynck wrote: > On 17/06/08 01:41, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > > > p.s. shouldn't the flag have been called is_posix_sh ? > > It might have been called sh_is_posix, but it's too late for that -- > upwards compatibility again. > > As for "erroneously" -- I agree with Bram that #!sh is supposed to mean > the original Bourne shell, not Bourne-again, not Korn, and quite > possibly before POSIX was invented. Anything which the original Bourne > shell did not support should not be used in a script starting #!sh (or > #!/bin/sh etc.) or else someday you'll feed one of these scripts to a > surviving copy of the original Bourne (not-again) shell and be surprised > that it doesn't work. > >
While compatibility is an important factor, at the same time could be a block to evolution. The fact is that 'sh' *is* the standard interpreter [1] and since $((..)) construct is a valid POSIX syntax shouldn't be treated as an error by default. I have the "g:is_posix = 1" setting in one of the initialized files because my 'sh' is a symbolic link to 'dash' which is a standard POSIX shell [2]. And I choose 'dash' because I wanted to have valid POSIX scripts that can be work in every system that has a POSIX shell; and is generally accepted that 'sh' should be symbolic link to a POSIX compliant shell. If it isn't (a POSIX compliant shell), then it's a system error, or this system doesn't care about standards and the $((...) should be treated as an error in this system and it's the time for "g:is_posix = 0". So I have to agree with Pádraig if my opinion matters. 1. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/sh.html 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Almquist_shell > Best regards, > Tony. Regards, Ag. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
