On 12/24/10 Dec 24 -10:51 AM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 10:40 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> On 12/24/10 Dec 24 -10:31 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>> On 12/24/10 Dec 24 -9:55 AM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 09:38 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>>>> I pushed a new test for asdf:run-shell-command that I believe will not
>>>>> work on Windows. The first step should be to use reader switches to
>>>>> remove the test contents when running on Windows, but ideally we should
>>>>> supply some windows code to take the place of the posix code where
>>>>> appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current test relies on /usr/bin/true and /usr/bin/false to test how
>>>>> asdf:run-shell-command checks exit codes.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK POSIX requires «true» and «false» to reside in /bin not /usr/bin
>>>
>>> OK, now checking both POSIX and Mac positions for these files. Pushed a
>>> new version. Thanks, Stelian.
>>
>> Actually, I am not sure I did the right thing here. I am looking at the
>> POSIX standard now (which I'm not good at navigating).
>>
>> It seems like what POSIX mandates is only that I be able to say "true"
>> or "false" to any compliant shell, and it will do the right thing. I
>> don't /believe/ that it dictates a location.
>>
>> So perhaps I have done the wrong thing here by giving a full pathname,
>> and I should simply be using "true" and "false" without directory
>> specifiers.
>
> That's even better, especially since most shells have them as built-ins
>