DVM - D Version Manager

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-01-26 21:47, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>>>
>>>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by
>>>>> all Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is
>>>>> also a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
>>>>> usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though
>>>>> Ubuntu/Debian has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint
>>>>> with posix...
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>>>
>>> FWIW, /bin/sh is usually a symlink to bash, and it makes bash behave
>>> like the original Bourne Shell.
>>
>> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh
>> instead of bash.
>
> Yes, it should limit you to /bin/sh supported commands
>
>>
>>> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
>>> scripts.
>>
>> I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
>>
>> export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec
>
> export => supported, but has a more limited syntax than bash
> source => supported via .
> builtin hash => supported
> rm => command (shell independent)
> exit => supported
> exec => supported
>
> -Steve

Ok, thanks.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg