[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sed

From: Matthew Woehlke
Subject: Re: sed
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:14:59 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20061206 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Stephane Chazelas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:19:20AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
and use $(...) instead of `...`
6- use the standard sh syntax instead of trying to rely on any
version and implementation of an unspecified shell like ksh or
bash (and have bash or ksh interpret that syntax if you wish as
those are standard conformant shells).
Funny that you say that, when you previously recommended using the non-portable $() construct. :-)

The Bourne shell is a legacy shell, just as the Thomson shell
was before it. You don't need to make scripts portable to that
shell anymore unless you want to support 15 year old systems,

Funny, I wasn't aware that Solaris 10 is "15 years old" already. (Though why Sun is keeping good old broken Bourne alive is beyond me.)

At any rate, I'll concede your point on "standard" vs "portable". However, some of us don't have the luxury of 100% POSIX compliant environments. (I still have to deal with nsr-tandem-nsk!)

"But I want to cast Magic Missile!"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]