Re: sh compatibility again :->

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 12,  6:00am, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: sh compatibility again :->
}
} >The only way to resolve this would be with yet another option, SH_QUOTES
} >or some such.  Worth it?  Dunno.
} 
} Not worth it.  POSIX leaves the behaviour undefined IIRC, and there's
} no advantage in the traditional behaviour.

You're right about POSIX, but since it makes a pretty radical difference
to the parse of a script containing unbalanced backticks, the advantage
to the traditional behavior is to be able to execute traditional scripts.
We can decide that's not very important, but it is something.

BTW:  Zoltan:  Welcome back. ;-)

-- 
Bart Schaefer                             Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts            http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern

New male in /home/schaefer:
>N  2 Justin William Schaefer  Sat May 11 03:43  53/4040  "Happy Birthday"