On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:36:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> So, what features do we settle on? we can either standardize
> on, well, a standard: POSIX/SUSv3, -- but there are things we use
> that come from XSI. I guess we could standardize on SUSv3 +XSI
> shells. Would still make local illegal:). The issue here sems to be
> that we are beginning to see people want to add in various and sundry
> features which are not pure POSIX just because people have been using
> it in their scripts.
I don't really like -a and -o (especially since they both exist in unary
versions too), but they are widely used, and since some people (hey MD!)
refuse to accept patches to remove them, I guess we're stuck with them.
With them also follows ( ).
As you mention, local isn't part of XSI either, but we could grandfather
that in just like echo -n behaviour (everything (?) echo -n
does can be achieved just as nicely with printf, but the amount of
scripts to fix is just too vast).
But SuSv3 + XSI (at least the XSI extensions for test -- I haven't
checked what other legacy crap it might bring) + local -- I can live
with that I guess, as long as we get rid of crap like [[ ]], <, >, -nt,
-ot, -ef, $RANDOM, $"...", read -e, declare, typeset, function (augh, I
cannot understand why bash even introduced that one), let, source
(again, completely pointless), pushd, popd, &>, {}...
I can probably come up with more, but this is a good start.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
