From rtobar at icrar.org  Tue Dec 19 02:35:15 2017
From: rtobar at icrar.org (Rodrigo Tobar)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:35:15 +0800
Subject: [Rd] Dialect for shell scripts
In-Reply-To: <0B88BEDA-36C6-4B05-BD57-986FAE257D77@gmail.com>
References: <98ab029a-fbbc-8297-b2e7-63857c43932f@icrar.org>
 <CALEXWq0qHBLYL15ikSiSCOmOh1wLMnrArT=7o0xbxMhDeJ2Pqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <23096.5582.934560.295269@hornik.net>
 <CAN6Gc-3zPkx-x7i0GKs3aWAGFTHA0zUqNv1MPJ6dsTh6jn96Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0B88BEDA-36C6-4B05-BD57-986FAE257D77@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4e86154-3340-2b6f-4c29-61b3949c613a@icrar.org>

Hi all,

Thanks to all for your responses. As pointed out by a few of you, using 
expr is indeed safer, and is what we ended up using in our script to get 
it accepted in CRAN.

On 19/12/17 07:26, peter dalgaard wrote:
> (I suspect that the text in WRE is actually older than the current POSIX standard, which is what causes confusion as to what constitutes a Bourne shell. It may be worth editing it to say that we are in fact more restrictive than current POSIX.)

This was exactly my point, and I think it would be great to have this 
clarified in the manual to avoid any unsuspected surprises during 
package submission. Since R expectations are naturally aligned with 
autoconf's it would be worth noting that, and maybe also pointing to the 
resource pointed at by I?aki.

I think the discussion about supported OSs is also an interesting one, 
but is greater than just about this particular subject.

Regards,

Rodrigo



[Rd] Dialect for shell scripts
Rodrigo Tobar