What they say is
> Whenever possible without breaking the above goals, fish should follow POSIX.
So they will be POSIX unless not feeling like it.
More clear:
> fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025, at 9:28 AM, Steve Litt via Talk wrote:
Evan Leibovitch via Talk said on Sun, 17 Aug 2025 02:35:59 -0400
>Non-POSIX-compliant by design, it appears to be far more advanced in
>tab-completion and inline syntax checking than bash.
leads you to say it's non-POSIX compliant?
SteveT
Steve Litt
------------------------------------
Description: GTALUG Talk