On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Dan Douglas <orm...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... Bash > just modifies conflicting features to the minimal extent necessary to bring it > into compliance, which seems to be the path of least resistance. >
Sure. I understand that this is a reasonable philosophy given that aiming for complete avoidance of unspecified behaviour in the POSIX spec would probably lead to a completely unusable shell. That said, it is a shame from the point of view of interoperable scripts. Perhaps I should just accept that dash, being more minimal, does a better job of being that conformance testing shell? > This would be a big job, I think, and not quite at the top of my wish-list. > Right now you can increase the number of things that fail by explicitly > disabling non-POSIX built-ins using the Bash "enable" builtin. > Thanks for that tip. > > Dash is useful for testing. The Bash answer is [[, which CAN do a lot of > special error handling on due to it being a compound command. I wrote a bit > about this here: > > http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/031/#Theory > > In reality, [[ is one of the very most portable non-POSIX features available. > Most people shouldn't have to worry about avoiding it. > Thanks, I'll have a read. jon.
