On 10/25/24 7:41 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:30 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
but that won't help with the portability problems.
You can't even use arrays or [[ ... ]] and be portable, right?
Well, it's tough to be portable to shells that don't implement those.
It
might
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:30 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> but that won't help with the portability problems.
You can't even use arrays or [[ ... ]] and be portable, right? It
might be easier to install bash on whatever it is at that point.
On 10/21/24 4:23 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:50 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
On 10/21/24 12:15 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
The nontrivial stuff I do is still being run by bash 4.2 at the
moment, and I'm not willing to give up procsubs.
Probably something to take up with your
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:07 PM Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:53 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >>
> >> That changed to an application requirement in 2001.
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, but as an "application requiremen
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:53 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
>>
>> On 10/21/24 9:54 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
>> > From the earlier message (just replying to this one to get the
>> > new Subject: which fits better)...
>> >
>> > zsan...@gmail.com said:
>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:50 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 10/21/24 12:15 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> >
> > The nontrivial stuff I do is still being run by bash 4.2 at the
> > moment, and I'm not willing to give up procsubs.
>
> Probably something to take up with your distro (Red Hat/Centos, right?
On 10/21/24 9:54 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
From the earlier message (just replying to this one to get the
new Subject: which fits better)...
zsan...@gmail.com said:
| I can work around function names needing to be valid shell 'name's by
That one bash could easily fix if it wanted to, there's ne
On 10/21/24 12:15 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
Item 8 is just odd and is on the verge of being a dealbreaker. Not to
go off on another tangent, but what on Earth?
AFAICT it's the non-POSIX-mode Bash behavior that is unusual.
While all shells will have treat single quotes as literal here:
>From the earlier message (just replying to this one to get the
new Subject: which fits better)...
zsan...@gmail.com said:
| I can work around function names needing to be valid shell 'name's by
That one bash could easily fix if it wanted to, there's never been a
POSIX requirement that only "n
Was "'wait -n' with and without id arguments"
On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 10:30 PM Grisha Levit wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 20:52 Zachary Santer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Item 8 is just odd and is on the verge of being a dealbreaker. Not to
>> go off on another tangent, but what on Earth?
>
>
> AFAICT
10 matches
Mail list logo
