Re: aborting a bash script with control-c

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

SUS[1]

[1] Single Unix Specification. I think this is more correct that the
old term POSIX though I have to keep reminding myself not to type
POSIX.

Saying just "POSIX" is (in the comp.unix.* newsgroups, anyway)
normally understood as meaning POSIX.1. Since 2001, SUS and POSIX.1
are one and the same document, and both names are valid, although
the document refers to itself internally as POSIX.1.

(For the nit-pickers: I said "SUS" above for brevity, but it would
be more correct to say "the base volumes of SUS", since SUS has an
extra XCurses volume.)

--
Geoff Clare <netnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: signals, threads, SIGPIPE, sigpending (fun!)
    ... > FC> to care about POSIX these days (ie, just shoot for SUS ... Implementations should strive to implement the Single UNIX Specification, ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: a posix compliant function to read group database?
    ... It's an X/Open function that's now in the ... Single UNIX Specification (SUS), but I don't think it was in any POSIX ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Is mprotect() defined in POSIX
    ... It seems to be part of the Single UNIX Specification, ... SUS is a superset of POSIX that places additional restrictions on the ... function mprotect() is defined. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: a gift for the mortensens
    ... floating-point random function in C. ... It is a POSIX function. ... the POSIX documents and the SUS documents were ... if I was programming for SUSv3 / UNIX ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: bash vs ksh?
    ... SUS, and SUS (not Posix) defines Unix ... SUS were merged to form a single standard. ...
    (comp.unix.shell)