[TUHS] sh: cmd | >file

[Dan Cross]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:56 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey at case.edu> wrote:

> On 1/6/20 4:29 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, arnold at skeeve.com wrote:
> >
> >> Would anyone who uses Bash regularly, both interactively and
> >> for scripting, really want to go back to using the V7 sh
> >> for production work?
> >
> > I have never used all the fancy stuff in BASH such as the arithmetic
> > functions; I still use "expr" etc for portability.
>
> Portability to what? The POSIX $((...)) arithmetic expansion is widely
> implemented and near-universally available.
>
> Some of the other things are more esoteric, but you should be able to
> increase your expectation to POSIX features and still be sufficiently
> portable.
>

Huh.

I've been in this "use the old stuff for portability" camp for some time,
but now that you mention it....I can't think of any systems I use that
require resorting to old-style shell-isms.

What an interesting epiphany. It reminds me of the time when first I
realized that continuing to write K&R-style C was no longer necessary, as
everything that I used had an ANSI-compatible compiler and supported
function prototypes.

Seeing backticks in the rearview mirror is a welcome change.

        - Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20200106/ee8f53d4/attachment.html>