[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/11]
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:56:57 -0600, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote:
> > I've scripted quite a lot in zsh (and ksh, sh, bash) and I agree with
> > the zsh guys on that one. Just sometimes everyone else really is
> > wrong.
>
> It doesn't matter if they are or not.
>
> Unless you have arrays in the shell, which they didn't when this
> behavior was devices in /bin/sh, there's really no alternative, so
> the right behavior was never an option. And if you're writing an
> interpreter for a scripting language you need to implement the
> language that you're writing an interpreter for.
>
> I mean, if you're going to break compatibility completely, you might
> as well fix the rest of the screwups at the same time.
>
> Starting with "do..done" versus "if..fi" and working up.
Once you are hitting these shell bounds, you are likely (or even should)
switch to a language that *is* portable: python, perl
I don't think *any* shell, being is sh or csh like, is good enough to write
portable and maintanable scripts longer than a screenfull of lines. Certainly
if it contains many conditionals and/or programming structures: loops, subs,
functions and the like
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.1, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52