Re: Syntax Question...

[Greg Wooledge]

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:56:43PM +0000, Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
> If zsh is not compatible with any other shell, then bash isn't
> either. What do you mean?

http://zsh.sourceforge.net/FAQ/zshfaq02.html#l10

"because of all the options it is not safe to assume a general zsh run
by a user will behave as if sh or ksh compatible"

Actually, this is a trend I wasn't previously aware of:

"invoking zsh as sh or ksh (or if either is a symbolic link to zsh) sets
appropriate options and improves compatibility (from within zsh itself,
calling ARGV0=sh zsh will also work)"

I have pretty much written off zsh as "some weird shell that isn't
compatible with the Bourne family" and have never really looked into it.
But it appears they're trying to get it to be a contender.  That's a
good sign, I guess.

But then there's this:

"The classic difference is word splitting, discussed in question 3.1;
this catches out very many beginning zsh users. As explained there, this
is actually a bug in every other shell."

Um, no.  Word splitting is well defined, and changing how your shell
handles it and declaring it "a bug in every other shell" is unacceptable.

So, it's still a loony shell from outer space as far as I'm concerned.