[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Q on Bash's self-documented POSIX compliance...

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: Q on Bash's self-documented POSIX compliance...
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:55:31 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Clark WANG wrote:

I think every POSIX compatible shell has its own extensions so there's no guarantee that a script which works fine in shell A would still work in shell B even if both A and B are POSIX compatible unless the script writer only uses POSIX compatible features. Is there a pure POSIX shell without adding any extensions?

        Excellent point -- then what is the point of POSIX compatibility?
Considering that there seems to be no way to run Bash in POSIX-only mode,
(and likely other POSIX-'compatible' [sic]) shells are similar -- they support
the minimums, but have no way for someone to determine if their script is
POSIX compatible (meaning only using POSIX)...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]