posix me harder

[Jos Backus]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 07:40:53AM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> This does not demonstrate that test(1) is broken.  First of all, pretty
> much every shell these days has test as a builtin, and as such you
> should be accusing sh(1), ksh(1), or similar.

I know, I should have dropped the ``(1)'' from ``test(1)''.

sh(1) on Solaris 8 says

     test  Evaluate  conditional  expressions.  See  test(1)  for
           usage and description.

so I was having the reasonable expectation that the test builtin would behave
identically. Turns out they forgot to apply the test(1) fixes to sh(1).  So
yes, it's sh(1)'s test that is broken.

-- 
Jos Backus                 _/  _/_/_/        Santa Clara, CA
                          _/  _/   _/
                         _/  _/_/_/             
                    _/  _/  _/    _/
josb at cncdsl.com     _/_/   _/_/_/            use Std::Disclaimer;