Re: sh compatibility question

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello, Akim!

> You may fall on some lonely hermit who decided plain old functionless
> sh was enough for him, but then 1. he is certainly not interested in
> your scripts, or 2. if he wants them, let him install bash.

One important point - bash used a configure script produced by Autoconf.

This means that Autoconf should wait another couple of years until all
users of functionless shells form a sect (UNIX Amishes :-)) and forbid to
its members using any software released after 1980 :-)

In this case the condition 1 will be satisfied.

> Nobody but Autoconf and Libtool maintainers should ever bother with
> non POSIX shell portability issues.  That's an absolute waste of time
> for a totally uninteresting issue (Gosh, how I'd love not to have the
> brain encumbered with references to *bugs*).

Shell functions are unimplemented features, not bugs.

If you ever looked at projects like Elix (http://sources.redhat.com/elix/)
that specify multi-tier API's you should know the difference.

Regards,
Pavel Roskin