On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

>
> bash/Linux allows "==" as an alternative to "=" in their test(1)  
> command.
> I wonder if we want to save some trouble and just make our test(1)  
> silently accept that too, instead of fixing all the broken scripts  
> out there.
>
> It'd be an extension to POSIX, so I don't see much of a problem.

I'm OK with this.  In fact, I noticed a couple of months ago at Day  
Job that I actually used the Bash syntax by mistake.

If you do this, though, make sure to update any other implementations  
of test (like built-ins in sh(1) / ksh(1)).


>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>  - Hubert
>
>
> Index: test.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/src/bin/test/test.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.28
> diff -u -r1.28 test.c
> --- test.c	4 Aug 2006 19:07:55 -0000	1.28
> +++ test.c	22 Sep 2006 00:04:42 -0000
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>  	unary-operator ::= "-r"|"-w"|"-x"|"-f"|"-d"|"-c"|"-b"|"-p"|
>  		"-u"|"-g"|"-k"|"-s"|"-t"|"-z"|"-n"|"-o"|"-O"|"-G"|"-L"|"-S";
>
> -	binary-operator ::= "="|"!="|"-eq"|"-ne"|"-ge"|"-gt"|"-le"|"-lt"|
> +	binary-operator ::= "="|"=="|"!="|"-eq"|"-ne"|"-ge"|"-gt"|"-le"|"- 
> lt"|
>  			"-nt"|"-ot"|"-ef";
>  	operand ::= <any legal UNIX file name>
>  */
> @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
>  	{"-L",	FILSYM,	UNOP},
>  	{"-S",	FILSOCK,UNOP},
>  	{"=",	STREQ,	BINOP},
> +	{"==",	STREQ,	BINOP},		/* bash compatibility */
>  	{"!=",	STRNE,	BINOP},
>  	{"<",	STRLT,	BINOP},
>  	{">",	STRGT,	BINOP},
>
>
> P.S.: As an alternative we could add some swearing at the user to  
> use proper POSIX syntax and whatnot. I'm sure you will come up with  
> something fancy. 8-)

-- thorpej