From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4338 invoked from network); 9 May 1997 21:17:20 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 May 1997 21:17:20 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA22502; Fri, 9 May 1997 17:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:01:27 -0400 (EDT) From: (Zoltan T. Hidvegi) Message-Id: <9705092104.AA06629@lotto.fishkill.ibm.com> Subject: Re: test patches In-Reply-To: <4612.199705092040@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> from Zefram at "May 9, 97 09:40:12 pm" To: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Zefram) Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh workers list) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"S8I_6.0.SV5.b2vSp"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3108 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Zefram wrote: > Having brace expansion on in sh mode potentially breaks some programs that > depend on POSIX. We do intend zsh to be a POSIX conformant sh, don't we? Yes. Unfortunately I do not have the final POSIX.2, just an early draft. bash, pdksh and ksh93 also intend to be POSIX conformant, and they all have brace expansion by default. > > And some Linux developers simply tell you, that if > >/bin/sh is not bash, then your Linux system is broken anyway. > > Anyone that tells you that is mistaken. Even the Linux kernel Makefiles > don't assume that /bin/sh is bash. You do not have to convice me, I was probably the first who started using zsh as /bin/sh more than two years ago. There was a long thread about related issues in the Debian development mailing list (which I do not read, I just saw this thread on the web mirror of the list), and there I saw posts expressing such opimions. The thread was about the bash-2.0 upgrade, and mostly concerned about the broken ((foo); bar) syntax in bash-2.0 (which will be fixed in the next bash as well as the next zsh release). Zoltan