Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "93t+".
2015 Apr 24
0
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...> and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That
> would only be true if you "sourced" the script from your shell.
So on CentOS 5 with ksh93 as my shell
% cat x
echo ${.sh.version}
Note that it's a simple one liner with no #!
% ./x
Version AJM 93t+ 2010-06-21
That's ksh output!
Let's change my shell to "bash" instead
% bash
bash-3.2$ ./x
./x: line 1: ${.sh.version}: bad substitution
So now it's bash that's trying to interpret it!
So "it depends" is still true :-)
Basically, without #! there (whi...
2015 Apr 24
9
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
> currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That
would only be true if you