Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Youngman" writes: >On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> set -- args > >Hmm, I certainly have a habit of doing this instead: > >set x blablablablabla >shift > >However, the only source file I can find that still does t

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > set -- args Hmm, I certainly have a habit of doing this instead: set x blablablablabla shift However, the only source file I can find that still does this was written in 2002. My guess is that I have used a system whe

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralf Wildenhues writes: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) wrote: >> > I've been getting utterly stunned pretty regularly throughout. The only >> > system I've found so far, other than embedded systems (hi, busybox!), which >> > doesn't have printf(1) either in th

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) wrote: > > I've been getting utterly stunned pretty regularly throughout. The only > > system I've found so far, other than embedded systems (hi, busybox!), which > > doesn't have printf(1) either in the shell or in the default $PATH, is SunOS > > 4 -- which I'm

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) wrote: ... > The sort of rough cutoff I picked, perhaps arbitrarily, was "systems with Y2K > fixes". So, Solaris 2+, but not Solaris 1/SunOS 4. > > I've been getting utterly stunned pretty regularly throughout. The only > system I've found so far, other than embe

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralf Wildenhues writes: >Quoting the Autoconf manual: >| `unset' >| In some nonconforming shells (e.g., Bash 2.05a), `unset FOO' fails >| when `FOO' is not set. Also, Bash 2.01 mishandles `unset MAIL' in >| some cases and dumps core. >So look for sys

Re: Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

Hello Peter, * Peter Seebach wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 06:12:40AM CEST: > > I am looking for systems on which the following *do not* work: > > unset Quoting the Autoconf manual: | `unset' | In some nonconforming shells (e.g., Bash 2.05a), `unset FOO' fails | when `FOO' is not set.

Somewhat off-topic, but hard to find better portability people.

Hi! Gary Vaughn pointed me at gnulib for portability experts. I've been working on some portable shell scripting material. I'm trying to track down the details of a couple of "some systems can't..." comments from the Autoconf documentation, because I haven't been able to find any such systems.