On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use non-Posix > > > > features of echo and test; why are non-Posix features of ls not an > > > > issue? > > > > > > <quote> > > > Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for anyone to use > > > ls in a shell script, I think it would add little value. > > > <unquote> > > > > Makes you wonder why it's in Posix.2 at all, huh? (Posix.2 is about > > scripts, not user interaction.) > > "The ls utility shall conform to the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std > 1003.1-2001, Section 12.2, Utility Syntax Guidelines." > > It's a *utility*, not a shell function.
Right. "test" and "echo" are also defined as utilities, not shell functions. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
