On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > 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.
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition, section 2.14: "The term "built-in" implies that the shell can execute the utility directly and does not need to search for it. An implementation may choose to make any utility a built-in..." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
