Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:06:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <loom.20110224T210222-768@post.gmane.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102201027170.56885@wonkity.com> <4D61599E.4040008@gmail.com> <AANLkTinJKcy8NyFzW9=6yKEY%2BF_payQVM108_=B7Gyjr@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andres Perera <andres.p <at> zoho.com> writes: > > Nowadays all shells supports $() so I advise you to use it :). > > no, not all shells support $() They do, it’s mandated by POSIX. There’s no reason to support the accidentally non-combining accent gravis (so-called “backtick”¹) any more, unless you specifically target Solaris 10 and below’s /bin/sh (which always had a ksh and /usr/xpg4/bin/sh which both are POSIX compatible), or, worse, the Bourne shell (you know, the one where you wrote ^ instead of | for pipes). Warren Block <wblock <at> wonkity.com> writes: > Still: aren't backticks and $() supposed to be equivalent? Nope. The so-called backtick is deprecated, doesn’t support nesting, and quoting (`…"…"…`) is Undefined, both with or without backslashes in front of the (inner) double quotes. And there may be more. ① http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/apostrophe.html explains quite well why a “backtick” doesn’t exist and the accident behind this ASCII character / codepoint. In short: never use it period. bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20110224T210222-768>