Article View: comp.unix.shell
Article #1128Re: Bourne shell differences w.r.t functions?
From: Larry Wall
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 1990 17:31
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 1990 17:31
10 lines
1062 bytes
1062 bytes
In article <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu> rantapaa@cs.umn.edu (Erik E. Rantapaa) writes: : For maximum portability, should I just avoid using functions : altogether? :( In a word, yes. I have never written a shell function. Not because I wouldn't have liked to upon occasion. But some of us live in multi-vendor environments, where portability is a way of life. Configure scripts can't afford to use shell functions either. That's life. Larry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9493@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwallReferences:
<1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: Bourne shell differences w.r.t functions? Keywords: Bourne shell, /bin/sh, functions, ksh, bash, argument list, POSIX Message-ID: <9493@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Date: 13 Sep 90 17:31:16 GMT References: <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu> Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 10