On 20Jul2017 13:41, Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/20/2017 05:31 AM, George N. White III wrote:
Rigid adherence to a standard is often overkill. Bashisms have been a
practical problem for systems that use dash for /bin/sh.
My understanding is that when bash is invoked as sh, it acts exactly
as sh itself would, so that only those builtin commands that are in sh
are available. Judging by what you write, this seems not to be the case any
more.
My recollection was that bash went POSIXly when invoked as /bin/sh, _with some
small exceptions_. I think it's been only-mostly-correct for a long time; it
was a long time ago when I read the caveat.
I've never checked thoroughly, but I imagine it has to do with parser issues
and low level things like that. For example, a longstanding pain point for me
is that bash requires function names to the identifiers rather than just words.
In a script my function names are identifiers, but interactively I've got a
bunch of nonidentifier preferably-functions which are special cased as aliases
or the like in bash. (I invoke my mail reader as "+", for example.)
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
