Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: [PATCH] Document imperfections in POSIX/sh compatibility

> On 13 April 2021 at 17:01 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> dana wrote on Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 18:31:31 -0500:
> > +Please note that zsh's emulation of other shells, as well as the degree
> > +of its POSIX compliance, is provided on a `best effort' basis.  Full
> > +compatibility is not guaranteed, and is not necessarily a goal of the
> > +project.
> I'm concerned that saying "is not necessarily a goal of the project"
> might discourage people from even reporting bugs in the first place.
> No objection to setting expectations, of course, but could we phrase it
> differently?  E.g., by documenting a list of known incompatibilities
> that won't be fixed?

This is certainly a good point.

The classic list of differences is in the FAQ, "how does zsh differ from..>".
It refers to "sh", implying the classic Bourne shell, rather than POSIX,
but this is probably the right starting point.  I think referring to the
FAQ here is probably the right thing to do --- it simultaneously makes
the points that (i) we are in principle interested (ii) it's not, however,
necessarily something that's ultimately going to be dealt with in the
shell itself.


Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author