Re: bashisms

[Ian Beckwith]

Hi,

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 08:30:13AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> We've had a similar discussion about this on an Autoconf list a while
> ago (with a Debian maintainer).  The Autoconf manual, Shell Portability
> chapter, lists 1 2 13 15 as signals which are safe to trap.  I'm not
> aware of any shell which does not accept these signal numbers in
> practice, except for maybe one that was written specifically to inflict
> extra pain upon shell script authors by explicitly disallowing them.

Thanks, to you and everyone else for the analysis.
I'll reassign the bug to checkbashisms and refer them
to this discussion.

> > which won't cause a syntax error but could lead to fallback options
> > being chosen unnecessarily. Could these all be replaced by use of
> > which(1)?
> 
> which is not Posix, unlike type.  Only the -p argument is not Posix,
> nor portable.  But you already mentioned that this merely causes a
> fallback to be used, so this is not a problem.

Oops, yes, I was only looking under builtins, not utilities.

thanks,

Ian.

-- 
Ian Beckwith - address@hidden - http://erislabs.net/ianb/
GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5  4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA
Listening to: Man Or Astroman? - The Vortex Beyond

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature