Re: ignoring current shell and always running posix shell? Re: Should this be this way?

[Pierre Gaston]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> wrote:
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>> ----
>>>
>>>         It is likely that the document is assuming you are running on
>>> a POSIX compliant system where all users use the same shell so there is
>>> only 1 shell, thus the use of the word 'the' when referring to the shell.
>>>
>> Of course, it's the posix specification for the posix shell........
> ----
>         What does that say about bash (in nonposix mode), perl, python,
> rbash, etc.... i.e. -- the case that I ran into was NOT me running in posix
> mode.

Not much the bash part was covered by quoting the manual.
No part of this email was about you, I was merely answering to Roman
about the fact that it is specified in the 2 documents that are
somehow relevant on this mailing list.

>         It would make no sense for posix to take the stance that any
> unknown script without a shebang at the top, presented to any interpreter 
> shell
> be ignored by the interpreter and instead shall be run under /bin/sh.
>
>         Posix used to claim they were "descriptive", not "prescriptive", 
> though
> they are becoming more of the latter with each new update, I'd find it hard to
> think they'd try to enforce all script languages to default sources to 
> /bin/sh.
>
Afaik Posix doesn't impose anything on anyone but those who want to
claim being posix compliant. (and yeah perl and python don't try to be
compliant with the posix shell specification).