Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: test patches
- X-seq: zsh-workers 3108
- From: <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (Zoltan T. Hidvegi)
- To: zefram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Zefram)
- Subject: Re: test patches
- Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Zsh workers list)
- In-reply-to: <4612.199705092040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from Zefram at "May 9, 97 09:40:12 pm"
Zefram wrote:
> Having brace expansion on in sh mode potentially breaks some programs that
> depend on POSIX. We do intend zsh to be a POSIX conformant sh, don't we?
Yes. Unfortunately I do not have the final POSIX.2, just an early draft.
bash, pdksh and ksh93 also intend to be POSIX conformant, and they all have
brace expansion by default.
> > And some Linux developers simply tell you, that if
> >/bin/sh is not bash, then your Linux system is broken anyway.
>
> Anyone that tells you that is mistaken. Even the Linux kernel Makefiles
> don't assume that /bin/sh is bash.
You do not have to convice me, I was probably the first who started using
zsh as /bin/sh more than two years ago. There was a long thread about
related issues in the Debian development mailing list (which I do not read,
I just saw this thread on the web mirror of the list), and there I saw
posts expressing such opimions. The thread was about the bash-2.0 upgrade,
and mostly concerned about the broken ((foo); bar) syntax in bash-2.0
(which will be fixed in the next bash as well as the next zsh release).
Zoltan
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author