POSIX shell: does `$` lose its special meaning if it is the last character in a word?
On ash, dash and bash, when I run
$ echo ab$
it returns
ab$
Is this behavior specified by POSIX or is it just a common convention in POSIX-compliant shells? I couldn't find anything on the POSIX Shell Command Language page that mentions this behavior.
shell posix
add a comment |
On ash, dash and bash, when I run
$ echo ab$
it returns
ab$
Is this behavior specified by POSIX or is it just a common convention in POSIX-compliant shells? I couldn't find anything on the POSIX Shell Command Language page that mentions this behavior.
shell posix
add a comment |
On ash, dash and bash, when I run
$ echo ab$
it returns
ab$
Is this behavior specified by POSIX or is it just a common convention in POSIX-compliant shells? I couldn't find anything on the POSIX Shell Command Language page that mentions this behavior.
shell posix
On ash, dash and bash, when I run
$ echo ab$
it returns
ab$
Is this behavior specified by POSIX or is it just a common convention in POSIX-compliant shells? I couldn't find anything on the POSIX Shell Command Language page that mentions this behavior.
shell posix
shell posix
edited 1 hour ago
Sparhawk
9,33263991
9,33263991
asked 2 hours ago
Harold Fischer
550313
550313
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
A $
followed by an space (or no character) is unspecified by POSIX.
The '$' character is used to introduce parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic evaluation. If an unquoted '$' is followed by a character that is not one of the following:
- A numeric character
- The name of one of the special parameters (see Special Parameters)
- A valid first character of a variable name
- A <left-curly-bracket> ( '{' )
- A <left-parenthesis>
the result is unspecified.
To make it explicit, a $
that is not followed by a character in this regex:
[0-9a-zA-Z@*#?$!-]
is explicitly unspecified: any result is allowed by POSIX.
That is: any specific result is not guaranteed by POSIX.
Or, if used, there is not way to know what whould be done by following POSIX.
However, all implementations that I know of accept a trailing $
as part of the preceding word (if any).
add a comment |
$
does not have a special meaning by itself (try echo $
), only when combined with other character after it and forming an expansion, e.g. $var
(or ${var}
), $(util)
, $((1+2))
.
The $
gets its "special" meaning as defining an expansion in the POSIX standard under the section Token Recognition:
If the current character is an unquoted
$
or`
, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic expansion from their introductory unquoted character sequences:$
or${
,$(
or`
, and$((
, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded. While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution.
So, if $
does not form an expansion, other parsing rules come into effect:
If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.
That covers your ab$
string.
In the case of a lone $
(the "new word" would be the $
by itself):
The current character is used as the start of a new word.
The meaning of the generated word containing a $
that is not a standard expansion is explicitly defined as unspecified by POSIX.
Also note that $
is the last character in $$
, but that this also happens to be the variable that holds the current shell's PID. In bash
, !$
may invoke a history expansion (the last argument af the previous command). So in general, no, $
is not without meaning at the end of an unquoted word, but at the end of a word it does at least not denote a standard expansion.
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.
– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone$
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.
– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492397%2fposix-shell-does-lose-its-special-meaning-if-it-is-the-last-character-in-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A $
followed by an space (or no character) is unspecified by POSIX.
The '$' character is used to introduce parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic evaluation. If an unquoted '$' is followed by a character that is not one of the following:
- A numeric character
- The name of one of the special parameters (see Special Parameters)
- A valid first character of a variable name
- A <left-curly-bracket> ( '{' )
- A <left-parenthesis>
the result is unspecified.
To make it explicit, a $
that is not followed by a character in this regex:
[0-9a-zA-Z@*#?$!-]
is explicitly unspecified: any result is allowed by POSIX.
That is: any specific result is not guaranteed by POSIX.
Or, if used, there is not way to know what whould be done by following POSIX.
However, all implementations that I know of accept a trailing $
as part of the preceding word (if any).
add a comment |
A $
followed by an space (or no character) is unspecified by POSIX.
The '$' character is used to introduce parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic evaluation. If an unquoted '$' is followed by a character that is not one of the following:
- A numeric character
- The name of one of the special parameters (see Special Parameters)
- A valid first character of a variable name
- A <left-curly-bracket> ( '{' )
- A <left-parenthesis>
the result is unspecified.
To make it explicit, a $
that is not followed by a character in this regex:
[0-9a-zA-Z@*#?$!-]
is explicitly unspecified: any result is allowed by POSIX.
That is: any specific result is not guaranteed by POSIX.
Or, if used, there is not way to know what whould be done by following POSIX.
However, all implementations that I know of accept a trailing $
as part of the preceding word (if any).
add a comment |
A $
followed by an space (or no character) is unspecified by POSIX.
The '$' character is used to introduce parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic evaluation. If an unquoted '$' is followed by a character that is not one of the following:
- A numeric character
- The name of one of the special parameters (see Special Parameters)
- A valid first character of a variable name
- A <left-curly-bracket> ( '{' )
- A <left-parenthesis>
the result is unspecified.
To make it explicit, a $
that is not followed by a character in this regex:
[0-9a-zA-Z@*#?$!-]
is explicitly unspecified: any result is allowed by POSIX.
That is: any specific result is not guaranteed by POSIX.
Or, if used, there is not way to know what whould be done by following POSIX.
However, all implementations that I know of accept a trailing $
as part of the preceding word (if any).
A $
followed by an space (or no character) is unspecified by POSIX.
The '$' character is used to introduce parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic evaluation. If an unquoted '$' is followed by a character that is not one of the following:
- A numeric character
- The name of one of the special parameters (see Special Parameters)
- A valid first character of a variable name
- A <left-curly-bracket> ( '{' )
- A <left-parenthesis>
the result is unspecified.
To make it explicit, a $
that is not followed by a character in this regex:
[0-9a-zA-Z@*#?$!-]
is explicitly unspecified: any result is allowed by POSIX.
That is: any specific result is not guaranteed by POSIX.
Or, if used, there is not way to know what whould be done by following POSIX.
However, all implementations that I know of accept a trailing $
as part of the preceding word (if any).
edited 16 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Isaac
11.2k11649
11.2k11649
add a comment |
add a comment |
$
does not have a special meaning by itself (try echo $
), only when combined with other character after it and forming an expansion, e.g. $var
(or ${var}
), $(util)
, $((1+2))
.
The $
gets its "special" meaning as defining an expansion in the POSIX standard under the section Token Recognition:
If the current character is an unquoted
$
or`
, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic expansion from their introductory unquoted character sequences:$
or${
,$(
or`
, and$((
, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded. While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution.
So, if $
does not form an expansion, other parsing rules come into effect:
If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.
That covers your ab$
string.
In the case of a lone $
(the "new word" would be the $
by itself):
The current character is used as the start of a new word.
The meaning of the generated word containing a $
that is not a standard expansion is explicitly defined as unspecified by POSIX.
Also note that $
is the last character in $$
, but that this also happens to be the variable that holds the current shell's PID. In bash
, !$
may invoke a history expansion (the last argument af the previous command). So in general, no, $
is not without meaning at the end of an unquoted word, but at the end of a word it does at least not denote a standard expansion.
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.
– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone$
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.
– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$
does not have a special meaning by itself (try echo $
), only when combined with other character after it and forming an expansion, e.g. $var
(or ${var}
), $(util)
, $((1+2))
.
The $
gets its "special" meaning as defining an expansion in the POSIX standard under the section Token Recognition:
If the current character is an unquoted
$
or`
, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic expansion from their introductory unquoted character sequences:$
or${
,$(
or`
, and$((
, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded. While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution.
So, if $
does not form an expansion, other parsing rules come into effect:
If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.
That covers your ab$
string.
In the case of a lone $
(the "new word" would be the $
by itself):
The current character is used as the start of a new word.
The meaning of the generated word containing a $
that is not a standard expansion is explicitly defined as unspecified by POSIX.
Also note that $
is the last character in $$
, but that this also happens to be the variable that holds the current shell's PID. In bash
, !$
may invoke a history expansion (the last argument af the previous command). So in general, no, $
is not without meaning at the end of an unquoted word, but at the end of a word it does at least not denote a standard expansion.
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.
– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone$
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.
– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$
does not have a special meaning by itself (try echo $
), only when combined with other character after it and forming an expansion, e.g. $var
(or ${var}
), $(util)
, $((1+2))
.
The $
gets its "special" meaning as defining an expansion in the POSIX standard under the section Token Recognition:
If the current character is an unquoted
$
or`
, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic expansion from their introductory unquoted character sequences:$
or${
,$(
or`
, and$((
, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded. While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution.
So, if $
does not form an expansion, other parsing rules come into effect:
If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.
That covers your ab$
string.
In the case of a lone $
(the "new word" would be the $
by itself):
The current character is used as the start of a new word.
The meaning of the generated word containing a $
that is not a standard expansion is explicitly defined as unspecified by POSIX.
Also note that $
is the last character in $$
, but that this also happens to be the variable that holds the current shell's PID. In bash
, !$
may invoke a history expansion (the last argument af the previous command). So in general, no, $
is not without meaning at the end of an unquoted word, but at the end of a word it does at least not denote a standard expansion.
$
does not have a special meaning by itself (try echo $
), only when combined with other character after it and forming an expansion, e.g. $var
(or ${var}
), $(util)
, $((1+2))
.
The $
gets its "special" meaning as defining an expansion in the POSIX standard under the section Token Recognition:
If the current character is an unquoted
$
or`
, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion, command substitution, or arithmetic expansion from their introductory unquoted character sequences:$
or${
,$(
or`
, and$((
, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded. While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution.
So, if $
does not form an expansion, other parsing rules come into effect:
If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.
That covers your ab$
string.
In the case of a lone $
(the "new word" would be the $
by itself):
The current character is used as the start of a new word.
The meaning of the generated word containing a $
that is not a standard expansion is explicitly defined as unspecified by POSIX.
Also note that $
is the last character in $$
, but that this also happens to be the variable that holds the current shell's PID. In bash
, !$
may invoke a history expansion (the last argument af the previous command). So in general, no, $
is not without meaning at the end of an unquoted word, but at the end of a word it does at least not denote a standard expansion.
edited 45 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Kusalananda
122k16230375
122k16230375
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.
– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone$
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.
– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.
– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone$
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.
– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
More to the point from this line of reasoning, since this step doesn't apply, either step 8 ("If the previous character was part of a word, the current character shall be appended to that word.") or step 10 ("The current character is used as the start of a new word.") must do. I think the word expansions section quoted by Isaac contrarily makes it unspecified, though, even if it perhaps didn't mean to.
– Michael Homer
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac I deleted the parenthesis that I'm assuming you're referring to.
– Kusalananda
1 hour ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
@Isaac Ah, I see. I thought "left unspecified" would mean the same as "defined as unspecified", but I could definitely make that wording better.
– Kusalananda
46 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing
$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.– Isaac
32 mins ago
It seems reasonable that In the case of a lone $ (the "new word" would be the $ by itself): and that is what has been generally implemented, but what sounds reasonable and what the spec states don't always match. What the spec clearly states is: "not followed by (…)", and a trailing
$
character is "not followed by (…)". So, it is explicitly unspecified.– Isaac
32 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone
$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone $
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
@Isaac Yes. This is what I say. The section I'm quoting is on token recognition. The lone
$
is recognised as a word token. It is not recognised as an expansion. The meaning of that lone $
word, i.e. the action that the shell takes, is unspecified. This is what I say.– Kusalananda
26 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492397%2fposix-shell-does-lose-its-special-meaning-if-it-is-the-last-character-in-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown