On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Bash-POSIX-Mode.html _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
