Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

[Benoit Sigoure]

Hi autoconfers,

On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:

> Le 6 nov. 07 à 11:56, Benoit Sigoure wrote :
>
> > On Nov 6, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >
> > > Le 3 nov. 07 à 23:10, Benoit Sigoure wrote :
> > >
> > > > +    # If with_boost is empty, we'll search in /lib first, which  
> > > > is not quite
> > > > +    # right so instead we'll try to a location based on where  
> > > > the headers are.
> > > > +    boost_tmp_lib=$with_boost
> > > > +    test x"$with_boost" = x && boost_tmp_lib=${boost_cv_inc_path 
> > > > %/include}
> > >
> > > This construct is not used in Autoconf, so I doubt
> > > it's right to use it for the AMA.
> >
> > What, the parameter expansion ${word%pattern}?  The Autoconf  
> > manual doesn't say anything about it, so I guessed it was portable.
>
> That's the right way to read the manual :)  If you want
> to know about its support, put a spy in Autoconf.

WDYT people?

> > It can used `expr' or `sed' instead, but it costs an extra fork  
> > (and forks are *very* costly on Windows/Cygwin, so I'm starting to  
> > hunt them, somehow)

Hmm 2 extra forks actually.

> I would not use it anyway.

Anyone aware of any portability issue with shell parameter expansions?

--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part