2 ms·
Rational ignorance. The bash warnings about non-POSIX features have a reputation for being unreliable, so if I've only tested with bash (because I don't care en
by prodigal_erik 17y ago
Rational ignorance. The bash warnings about non-POSIX features have a reputation for being unreliable, so if I've only tested with bash (because I don't care enough to set up chroot) I shouldn't claim it works with any other shell.
- silentbicycle 17y agoNo no no, I'm not saying it's testing a shell script, I'm talking about requiring bash for a script that literally says: #!/usr/local/bin/bash prog_name some_argument Or, worse yet, programs that exec a command by using bash internally.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoWell ... maybe using a shell to run a command worked differently in 1971. There's $IFS ... job control ... Okay, yeah, there has never been a shell on which that wouldn't work. WTF bonus points for requring /usr/local/bin, which is almost certainly not where the OS maintainers package it.
- nailer 17y agoThe argument could be a filename. The filename could have a space in it. So yes, I'd use a shell that has $@ rather than $*, a settable IFS, etc.