Rational ignorance. The bash warnings about non-POSIX features have a reputation...

silentbicycle · on Dec 6, 2009

No no no, I'm not saying it's testing a shell script, I'm talking about requiring bash for a script that literally says:

   #!/usr/local/bin/bash
   prog_name some_argument

Or, worse yet, programs that exec a command by using bash internally.

prodigal_erik · on Dec 7, 2009

Well ... maybe using a shell to run a command worked differently in 1971. There's $IFS ... job control ...

Okay, yeah, there has never been a shell on which that wouldn't work. WTF bonus points for requring /usr/local/bin, which is almost certainly not where the OS maintainers package it.

nailer · on Dec 8, 2009

The argument could be a filename. The filename could have a space in it. So yes, I'd use a shell that has $@ rather than $*, a settable IFS, etc.