Hello Peter, * Peter Seebach wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 06:12:40AM CEST: > > I am looking for systems on which the following *do not* work: > > unset
Quoting the Autoconf manual: | `unset' | In some nonconforming shells (e.g., Bash 2.05a), `unset FOO' fails | when `FOO' is not set. Also, Bash 2.01 mishandles `unset MAIL' in | some cases and dumps core. So look for systems with those bash versions. > "$@" (expanding to null, not an empty string, when no positional parameters) systems are listed for this, too: | `$@' | One of the most famous shell-portability issues is related to | `"$@"'. When there are no positional arguments, Posix says that | `"$@"' is supposed to be equivalent to nothing, but the original | Unix version 7 Bourne shell treated it as equivalent to `""' | instead, and this behavior survives in later implementations like | Digital Unix 5.0. > (As is so often the case, "portable" is not exactly a boolean; what I want to > be able to do is tell people not just that there exists a machine where > one of these doesn't work, but what it might be, so they can make informed > decisions about it.) Sure. If you're missing systems mentioned in the Autoconf manual, then they should be added. Typically, if we find a newer system that still exposes an old bug, we list it. Cheers, Ralf
