Re: [PATCH] Document imperfections in POSIX/sh compatibility

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 13 April 2021 at 17:01 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> dana wrote on Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 18:31:31 -0500:
> > +Please note that zsh's emulation of other shells, as well as the degree
> > +of its POSIX compliance, is provided on a `best effort' basis.  Full
> > +compatibility is not guaranteed, and is not necessarily a goal of the
> > +project.
> 
> I'm concerned that saying "is not necessarily a goal of the project"
> might discourage people from even reporting bugs in the first place.
> No objection to setting expectations, of course, but could we phrase it
> differently?  E.g., by documenting a list of known incompatibilities
> that won't be fixed?

This is certainly a good point.

The classic list of differences is in the FAQ, "how does zsh differ from..>".
It refers to "sh", implying the classic Bourne shell, rather than POSIX,
but this is probably the right starting point.  I think referring to the
FAQ here is probably the right thing to do --- it simultaneously makes
the points that (i) we are in principle interested (ii) it's not, however,
necessarily something that's ultimately going to be dealt with in the
shell itself.

pws