Pretty bad argument. If it’s not defined by POSIX, it’s not POSIX compatible if you rely on a specific behavior.
If you only use defined behavior and it works, it is compatible.
It’s like saying C99 isn’t a compiler. True, but you can still write C99 code, right?
smitty1e•1h ago
> C99 isn’t a compiler.
Sure, but the pojt here is that if we say "Write in X" we generally understand it to mean "Treat X like a standard and don't get too colloquial with the stylings."
Pedantry is worthwhile, but it can be a diminishing returns game.
Muhammad523•1h ago
This post is nice: the writer first explains a problem, using a simple example. In the next section, they reflect a bit about the problem, and then they casually mention two tools they built. In my opinion, this is amazing: you sponsor you project, while also making the problem it solves clear: use their tool to test how portable your code is
jmclnx•48m ago
Will not build without docker, so I am out of luck. This tells me this is not portable, even to some Linuxes.
sdovan1•23m ago
If your environment is POSIX, testing scripts with tool written in POSIX shell, like shellspec[1], might also be a choice.
echoangle•1h ago
If you only use defined behavior and it works, it is compatible.
It’s like saying C99 isn’t a compiler. True, but you can still write C99 code, right?
smitty1e•1h ago
Sure, but the pojt here is that if we say "Write in X" we generally understand it to mean "Treat X like a standard and don't get too colloquial with the stylings."
Pedantry is worthwhile, but it can be a diminishing returns game.