On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:53 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote: > 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..."
Right. Just like ls, or debconf. Posix puts grep, ls, kill, test, and echo all in *exactly the same category*. So why does posh treat them so differently? Why is catching non-Posix uses of test and echo important, and non-Posix uses of ls grep not important? Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
