Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: Discrepancy in IFS handling (zsh is POSIX compliant)

X-seq: zsh-users 29005
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Thomas Paulsen <thomas.paulsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: zsh-users@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Discrepancy in IFS handling (zsh is POSIX compliant)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:18:35 -0600
Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/users/29005>
In-reply-to: <1d3d501ae2018b88447df0f07ca86ed6@firemail.de>
List-id: <zsh-users.zsh.org>
References: <CAMP44s31HWYdR+Qn7w7yxzsboheEf_6xFv4yv6qGS8NBT_pqhA@mail.gmail.com> <1d3d501ae2018b88447df0f07ca86ed6@firemail.de>

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:38 AM Thomas Paulsen
<thomas.paulsen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> indeed an original bourne shell, and ksh88 and ksh94 behave exactly like bash
> On the other hand, tcsh and the ultra modern fish behave like zsh.
>
> Thus, I don't see the need for changing zsh. Let it as it is. It's in proud companionship.

Nobody is saying we should change zsh.

I'm saying if POSIX says the behavior shall be like bourne shell, then
perhaps zsh should do that in sh mode (not in zsh mode).

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

References:
- Discrepancy in IFS handling (zsh is POSIX compliant)
  - From: Felipe Contreras
- Re: Discrepancy in IFS handling (zsh is POSIX compliant)
  - From: Thomas Paulsen

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author