On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:37:43PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> test -f /bin/sh5 && test -z "$RUNNING_SH5" \
> && { UNAMES=`uname -s`; test "x$UNAMES" = xULTRIX; } 2>/dev/null \
> && { RUNNING_SH5=true; export RUNNING_SH5; exec /bin/sh5 $0 ${1+"$@"}; }
> unset RUNNING_SH5
>
The reason I asked is the fortran dependency tracker that I'm writing.
I just figured that I could write some things more elegantly if shell
functions were allowed.
If I understand right what Akim writes, I do not need to worry about
shells without functions in a fortran dependency tracking tool
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Hello, Akim!
>> You may fall on some lonely hermit who decided plain old
>> functionless sh was enough for him, but then 1. he is certainly not
>> interested in your scripts, or 2. if he wants them, let him install
>> bash.
Pavel>
Hello, Akim!
> You may fall on some lonely hermit who decided plain old functionless
> sh was enough for him, but then 1. he is certainly not interested in
> your scripts, or 2. if he wants them, let him install bash.
One important point - bash used a configure script produced by Autoconf.
This
> "Martin" == Martin Wilck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> I wonder why autoconf doesn't use shell functions. Is that a
Martin> compatibility issue? According to the bash info pages, shell
Martin> functions belong to the POSIX standard for the Bourne shell.
You are twice right, but the
I wonder why autoconf doesn't use shell functions.
Is that a compatibility issue?
According to the bash info pages, shell functions belong to the
POSIX standard for the Bourne shell.
--
Martin Wilck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Institute for Tropospheric Research, Permoserstr. 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germa
