Jonathan Nieder: > Has the Austin Group made a decision > on whether this syntax is going to be supported? I don't think a decision has been formally made. Most of the email discussion has been about possibly adding "<" and ">" to the spec, which are not in the current POSIX spec but are already implemented in dash. The last comment posted on mantis about this extension to POSIX was positive; eblake (manager) said, "adding the other four operators (==, -ot, -nt, -ef) make[s] sense" [http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=375]. > dash tends to support features that ash and older > versions of dash supported (to avoid breaking backward compatibility) Busybox's ash *already* supports "==", so I think that's *also* an argument for adding "==". After all, adding "==" would improve compatibility between busybox ash and dash, and its effect on space and speed is miniscule. I understand that dash wants to be "lean and mean", but busybox does too, and even busybox supports "==". I think it's reasonably likely that "==" will be added to the POSIX spec, but that's not up to me. Even if this syntax isn't added to the official standard, I still think it'd make sense to support "==". It's already implemented in a number of shells, including bash, busybox ash, and ksh. More importantly, a lot of extant shell scripts use it; many scripts won't work on dash because dash doesn't include "==". --- David A. Wheeler -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dash" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html