On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 09:10:02AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:49:09PM +0200, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
> > P.S.: The fact that some features of Bash, mainly `set -e`, which > > should be a safety-net for scripts, is "unpredictable" is not so very > > reassuring... Demand for this safety-net might be obvious, but I suppose too few are using it regularly? There are places where you have to ignore a failing command (simple example: in test conditions) and the more subtle cases apparently never were really recognized (let alone settled on)? See a comparison among various shells: http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/set-e/ And discussing a more offtopic-lke part: > [...] practice of using the absolute lowest common denominator > feature set in order to make your script run everywhere. Huh, that's fundamental decisions in a casual sentence. Yes, the lowest common denominator is quite traditional, but I believe the real decision is to find out what amount of portability you actually need. > With Solaris still shipping a Bourne shell (rather than a POSIX shell) > in /bin/sh that means you're stuck with 7th Edition semantics unless > you're willing to put in tricks to try to re-invoke your script under > /usr/xpg4/bin/sh or /bin/sh5 or ksh or bash or whatever. Such dicussions are a mine field. But I believe here you are really confusing Solaris (quite recent SVR4-like shell) with Ultrix (sh: V7-like shell without functions ./. sh5: SVR2-like shell).
