Re: Austin Interps 211

[Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@xxxxxxxx>]

Roger Marquis wrote:

> Don't forget dash, but then these shells are supposed to be /bin/sh
> compatible by introspection.  Failed implementations, intentional or
> otherwise, should not be accommodated by changing the standard of the only
> shell that developers can turn to for compatibility.  When they need
> features they use other shells or scripting languages.  When they need to
> maximize compatibility they use /bin/sh.
But saying "they use /bin/sh" doesn't really mean anything, since there's
no real standard for /bin/sh other than Posix.  Versions of sh from the
7th edition on are all different.  Why else would autoconf have such a
lengthy section in its manual about only the most significant differences?
The subset to which you have to restrict yourself is more or less the same
in the Posix standard, with a couple of exceptions.

Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer

Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/