Re: more shell limitations

[Paul Eggert]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> Is there any reason that
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.59/index.html does
> not link to an HTML version of the manual?

Nobody bothered to generate one.  I'll add it to my list of things to
do for the next versoin.

> I would like to see the following limitations documented in the
> autoconf manual:

These would be nice, yes.  Can you please write up a patch along those
lines and send to to address@hidden  Also, you'll need to
sign papers for Autoconf.  I assume you know the drill for that; if
not, please let me know.

> (Question - is it portable to do 'foo=bar export foo', or does the
> assignment need to be a separate line from the export?)

I'd use a separate line myself.

> (Question - are there shells that support functions but do not support
> compound-body besides {}?

I wouldn't be surprised, not that I've run into one.

> Question - do the GNU coding conventions, or at
> least autoconf, have a recommended style for function syntax?)

Not that I know of.  I'd recomment {} for autoconf, though.

> 10.9 - shift - (Question - is 'shift n' portable, or should it always be
> written 'shift; shift'... n times?)

I personally have run into old shells that did not support "shift n".
It's been a while, though.

> (Question - should autoconf be unaliasing everything as part of its shell
> sanitization procedure?  Or at least quoting simple command words to
> ensure that aliases aren't being expanded?)

I'm of two minds about this.  Have you run into a problem with aliases
here?  If not, I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.