Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:30:33 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sh man page .... Message-ID: <CAHu1Y70u6FSwYDnA0KBctWKjJrTWrYrn82eqO_UBX2L30H2Vnw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5437FB8B.9080008@hiwaay.net> References: <5437FB8B.9080008@hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, William A. Mahaffey III <wam@hiwaay.net> wrote: >.....I had a bunch of shell scripts written to use Linux > sh, which was in fact bash, which means it had a superset of the arithmetic > operators that traditional sh had. When I use these scripts under sh under > FBSD 9.3, they largely work, though there are some minor differences (empty > strings evaluate to zero (0) under bash, error under sh). The man page for > sh doesn't reflect some of these compatibilities/incompatibilities, Nor should it. The Bourne Shell is the Bourne Shell, is adequately documented by the man page, and warnings about incompatibility are the responsibility of those who foist off bash as sh. You're blaming your own bad habit on others. :-) - M
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y70u6FSwYDnA0KBctWKjJrTWrYrn82eqO_UBX2L30H2Vnw>