On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:13:37AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:36:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Why? Surely it would be useful to know what the differences are between > > various shells. The statement "Posix-compatible" was apparently > > intended by the authors of that part of the Policy Manual to do that > > work for us, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean the work is valueless. > > POSIX (SUSv3) + -a/-o + local was such a statement, and you started > arguing because it did not contain your favorite-of-the-day feature. You > fail to realize that any such statement _WILL_ restrict the set of > allowed features because that is the _purpose_ of such a statement. > > And yes, the world moves and sometimes the limits should be extended - > that's happening right now. But that does not mean that suddenly > everything-and-the-kithcen-sink that some particular implementation > supports should be allowed. And it is also _fine_ if GNU coreutils > supports more than required by the policy; just make sure you explicitely > write "/usr/bin/test" if you want to rely on such a feature.
Hard-coding path is frowned upon theses days and there is no standard way to disable a shell built-in, so in practice we are actively prevented from using coreutils test and thus coreutils test features. So the question is not merely what should be the default. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
