Some talks related to this from the Debian conference:<p><a href="https://debconf16.debconf.org/talks/63/" rel="nofollow">https://debconf16.debconf.org/talks/63/</a>
<a href="https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/90-mining-debian-maintainer-scripts/" rel="nofollow">https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/90-mining-debian-maintai...</a>
<a href="https://debconf19.debconf.org/talks/105-symbolic-execution-of-maintainer-scripts/" rel="nofollow">https://debconf19.debconf.org/talks/105-symbolic-execution-o...</a>
Heck yeah! Thanks for this!<p>On a whim, I've been doodling ideas for a POSIX(ish)-shell compiled language. Seeing other people interested in such (probably useless, but fun) ideas encourages me.<p>Thanks OP! (I kinda wish that, of the 6 dependencies, I had heard of at least 2 of them, but beggars can't be choosers. You do you!! And though I've never done so myself, People I Respect (tm) say that Haskell/ML/OCaml are respectable tools for building parsers anyway)
That's great =D Would be interesting to see a comparison to the parse that shellcheck gives[0][1], is this stricter and/or more abstracted perhaps?<p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/blob/master/src/ShellCheck/Parser.hs" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/blob/master/src/Shell...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/blob/master/src/ShellCheck/AST.hs" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/blob/master/src/Shell...</a>