Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:48:35 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <AANLkTi=L79knokjz=YL-cQ9VTcqqSxK=0N3c88aOP1tv@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> References: <4C6505A4.9060203@FreeBSD.org> <4C650B75.3020800@FreeBSD.org> <4C651192.9020403@FreeBSD.org> <i477eo$i4d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C673898.2080609@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim_prShRiHkLnFbhek9%2Beaa-KaJ5oZtNo%2BLd0K1@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> zsh less POSIX-compliant, oddly deviant from "standard" > bourne-derived shells which makes graybeards break out in hives > also, see ruby under user community ZSH has a POSIX-compliant interface through emulate -L sh or by naming (linking) zsh binary sh. even if the man page says that the posix compliance isn't complete from my own tests it is at least as compliant as bash. For example I'm able to run portmaster using zsh instead of sh. (by the way it is a lot faster using zsh :) but that is another storry) -- Bapt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=L79knokjz=YL-cQ9VTcqqSxK=0N3c88aOP1tv>