On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:57 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> > Although, I am curious, is this is a matter of sh being continually
> > updated to exclude all bash extensions or perhaps previously bash
> > didn't interpret #!/bin/sh to be the POSIX compliant interpreter?
>
> Whe
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 16:53 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 01:35:50PM -0700, Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> > Although, I am curious, is this is a matter of sh
> > being continually updated to exclude all bash extensions
>
> Eh? POSIX is defined by a group of people and publishe
Hi Chet,
Thank you for the response, and the attempt at assistance.
I was unaware of the POSIX specifications relating to editing modes.
After reading the specs, however, I don't think they conflict with
what I propose. While the description of the [count]v command does
say that it executes the
Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> Although, I am curious, is this is a matter of sh being continually
> updated to exclude all bash extensions or perhaps previously bash
> didn't interpret #!/bin/sh to be the POSIX compliant interpreter?
When bash is invoked as sh then bash complies with the POSIX sh. Th
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 01:35:50PM -0700, Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> Although, I am curious, is this is a matter of sh
> being continually updated to exclude all bash extensions
Eh? POSIX is defined by a group of people and published. Here's the
current edition:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinep
DJ Mills writes:
> The only way I can think of to get the last argument in sh is to loop
> through them,
> something like:
> for arg; do last="$arg"; done; echo "$last"
$ eval echo \"\${$#}\"
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM, DJ Mills wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:35:12PM -0700, Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
>> > When executing a test script using the #!/bin/sh interpreter
>> line
>> > the shell expansion for the la
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:35:12PM -0700, Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> > When executing a test script using the #!/bin/sh interpreter line
> > the shell expansion for the last argument ${!#} is blank,
>
> Good. And now you know why you
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:35:12PM -0700, Jacoby Hickerson wrote:
> When executing a test script using the #!/bin/sh interpreter line
> the shell expansion for the last argument ${!#} is blank,
Good. And now you know why you use a proper #!/bin/bash shebang when
you use bash extensions in
I tried to send this using bash-bug, however I didn't realize my sendmail
was not setup, so here is the description in the format of bash-bug.
Bash Version: 4.2
Patch Level: 10
Release Status: release
Description:
When executing a test script using the #!/bin/sh interpreter line
the shell
E R wrote:
> - I've noticed that the argument passed to the she-bang interpreter
> always seems to be an absolute path when commands are executed from a
> shell. Are there cases where that will not be true?
You might find reading Sven Mascheck's documentation interesting:
http://www.in-ulm.de/
Hi all,
This is not a bash bug, but I am hoping the people on this list would
find the question interesting...
I have found it useful to have a "script-relative" version of
/usr/bin/env. Whereas env determines an interpreter's location based
on PATH, this version would determine the interpreter's
12 matches
Mail list logo
