我使用这个函数（一个不包括但很明显的依赖项）。它通过了以下测试。如果函数返回值>0，则找到字符串。你也可以很容易地返回1或0。

function str_instr {
   # Return position of ```str``` within ```string```.
   # >>> str_instr "str" "string"
   # str: String to search for.
   # string: String to search.
   typeset str string x
   # Behavior here is not the same in bash vs ksh unless we escape special characters.
   str="$(str_escape_special_characters "${1}")"
   string="${2}"
   x="${string%%$str*}"
   if [[ "${x}" != "${string}" ]]; then
      echo "${#x} + 1" | bc -l
   else
      echo 0
   fi
}

function test_str_instr {
   str_instr "(" "'foo@host (dev,web)'" | assert_eq 11
   str_instr ")" "'foo@host (dev,web)'" | assert_eq 19
   str_instr "[" "'foo@host [dev,web]'" | assert_eq 11
   str_instr "]" "'foo@host [dev,web]'" | assert_eq 19
   str_instr "a" "abc" | assert_eq 1
   str_instr "z" "abc" | assert_eq 0
   str_instr "Eggs" "Green Eggs And Ham" | assert_eq 7
   str_instr "a" "" | assert_eq 0
   str_instr "" "" | assert_eq 0
   str_instr " " "Green Eggs" | assert_eq 6
   str_instr " " " Green "  | assert_eq 1
}

这也适用于：

if printf -- '%s' "$haystack" | egrep -q -- "$needle"
then
  printf "Found needle in haystack"
fi

阴性试验为：

if ! printf -- '%s' "$haystack" | egrep -q -- "$needle"
then
  echo "Did not find needle in haystack"
fi

我认为这种风格更为经典——更少依赖于Bash shell的特性。

--参数是纯粹的POSIX偏执狂，用于防止类似于选项的输入字符串，例如--abc或-a。

注意：在紧密循环中，此代码将比使用内部Bashshell特性慢得多，因为将创建一个（或两个）单独的进程并通过管道连接。

正如Paul在绩效比较中提到的：

if echo "abcdefg" | grep -q "bcdef"; then
    echo "String contains is true."
else
    echo "String contains is not true."
fi

这是符合POSIX的，就像Marcus提供的答案中的“case“$string”一样，但它比case语句答案更容易阅读。还要注意，这将比使用case语句慢得多。正如保罗所指出的，不要在循环中使用它。

这里回答的问题的扩展如何判断POSIX sh中的字符串是否包含另一个字符串？：

此解决方案适用于特殊字符：

# contains(string, substring)
#
# Returns 0 if the specified string contains the specified substring,
# otherwise returns 1.
contains() {
    string="$1"
    substring="$2"

    if echo "$string" | $(type -p ggrep grep | head -1) -F -- "$substring" >/dev/null; then
        return 0    # $substring is in $string
    else
        return 1    # $substring is not in $string
    fi
}

contains "abcd" "e" || echo "abcd does not contain e"
contains "abcd" "ab" && echo "abcd contains ab"
contains "abcd" "bc" && echo "abcd contains bc"
contains "abcd" "cd" && echo "abcd contains cd"
contains "abcd" "abcd" && echo "abcd contains abcd"
contains "" "" && echo "empty string contains empty string"
contains "a" "" && echo "a contains empty string"
contains "" "a" || echo "empty string does not contain a"
contains "abcd efgh" "cd ef" && echo "abcd efgh contains cd ef"
contains "abcd efgh" " " && echo "abcd efgh contains a space"

contains "abcd [efg] hij" "[efg]" && echo "abcd [efg] hij contains [efg]"
contains "abcd [efg] hij" "[effg]" || echo "abcd [efg] hij does not contain [effg]"

contains "abcd *efg* hij" "*efg*" && echo "abcd *efg* hij contains *efg*"
contains "abcd *efg* hij" "d *efg* h" && echo "abcd *efg* hij contains d *efg* h"
contains "abcd *efg* hij" "*effg*" || echo "abcd *efg* hij does not contain *effg*"

我的.bash_profile文件以及我如何使用grep：

如果PATH环境变量包含我的两个bin目录，请不要追加它们，

# .bash_profile
# Get the aliases and functions
if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then
    . ~/.bashrc
fi

U=~/.local.bin:~/bin

if ! echo "$PATH" | grep -q "home"; then
    export PATH=$PATH:${U}
fi

因此，这个问题有很多有用的解决方案——但哪一个最快/使用的资源最少？

使用此框架重复测试：

/usr/bin/time bash -c 'a=two;b=onetwothree; x=100000; while [ $x -gt 0 ]; do TEST ; x=$(($x-1)); done'

每次更换测试：

[[ $b =~ $a ]]           2.92 user 0.06 system 0:02.99 elapsed 99% CPU

[ "${b/$a//}" = "$b" ]   3.16 user 0.07 system 0:03.25 elapsed 99% CPU

[[ $b == *$a* ]]         1.85 user 0.04 system 0:01.90 elapsed 99% CPU

case $b in *$a):;;esac   1.80 user 0.02 system 0:01.83 elapsed 99% CPU

doContain $a $b          4.27 user 0.11 system 0:04.41 elapsed 99%CPU

（doContain在F.Houri的回答中）

对于傻笑：

echo $b|grep -q $a       12.68 user 30.86 system 3:42.40 elapsed 19% CPU !ouch!

因此，无论是在扩展测试还是案例中，简单的替代选项都可以预测地获胜。这个箱子是便携式的。

输出到100000 greps是可想而知的痛苦！关于无需使用外部实用程序的旧规则是正确的。