[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more shell limitations
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: more shell limitations |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:49:19 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> Is there any reason that
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.59/index.html does
> not link to an HTML version of the manual?
Nobody bothered to generate one. I'll add it to my list of things to
do for the next versoin.
> I would like to see the following limitations documented in the
> autoconf manual:
These would be nice, yes. Can you please write up a patch along those
lines and send to to address@hidden Also, you'll need to
sign papers for Autoconf. I assume you know the drill for that; if
not, please let me know.
> (Question - is it portable to do 'foo=bar export foo', or does the
> assignment need to be a separate line from the export?)
I'd use a separate line myself.
> (Question - are there shells that support functions but do not support
> compound-body besides {}?
I wouldn't be surprised, not that I've run into one.
> Question - do the GNU coding conventions, or at
> least autoconf, have a recommended style for function syntax?)
Not that I know of. I'd recomment {} for autoconf, though.
> 10.9 - shift - (Question - is 'shift n' portable, or should it always be
> written 'shift; shift'... n times?)
I personally have run into old shells that did not support "shift n".
It's been a while, though.
> (Question - should autoconf be unaliasing everything as part of its shell
> sanitization procedure? Or at least quoting simple command words to
> ensure that aliases aren't being expanded?)
I'm of two minds about this. Have you run into a problem with aliases
here? If not, I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.