On 17 May 2012 15:10, Joerg Schilling <[email protected]> wrote: > Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Joerg, please stop promoting your Joerg Bourne shell here. Thank you. >> Also please stop changing wikipedia articles (e.g. "comparison of >> command shells") for promotional purposes, too. Just saying that here >> before you quote that article as "proof" for Bourne shell vs Korn >> shell capabilities. > > Some people live in a world that has been true in 1979 and these people don't > like information to be updated to even to the state of 1995. > > Some people seem to believe that other people will believe them when they use > the term "promotional" for attempts to remove false claims. > > I am not interested in these people, as I live in the present and as I don't > like false claims. > > Given the fact that I added the command line history editor I wrote 1982..1984 > for my "bsh" to the Bourne Shell in December 2006, it would not even be > promotional if I did add a related hint to the wiki article as we now have > 2012.
*sigh* You are diverting to other topics. See below. > > >> > It seems that you did not understand the ideas behind the POSIX standard. >> > >> > POSIX with good reason does not standardize on pathnames (except for >> > /dev/null). This allows a POSIX compliant system to put a POSIX compliant >> > shell >> > wherever it likes in order to keep a traditional Bourne Shell in /bin/sh. >> > I however even plan to have ksh in /bin and the Bourne Shell in /sbin/sh >> > even though the current version of ksh93 is not fully POSIX compliant. >> >> Joerg, I ran the SUS test suite last week against ast-open.2012-05-04. >> ksh93, part of this beta release, passed the tests. Could you please >> send the bug to *this* list which makes ksh93 not fully POSIX >> compliant? Thank you. > > Passing the SUS tests does not verify POSIX compliance. Look e.g. in special > at > Mac OS X that passed the tests even though bash is the only half-way POSIX > shell that was definitely not POSIX compliant when the tests have been run. > Bash did not implement the -e option correctly (important for correct behavior > of make(1)) and bash most likely still does job-control on scripts that causes > nested make calls to continue in the background if you hit ^C. Joerg, would you please come with with detailed proof that ksh (ksh93) violates the POSIX standards. Please don't divert to other topics, just present us the technical facts. bash, your Bourne shell, Mac OS X or anything else does not matter in this discussion. Lionel _______________________________________________ belenix-discuss mailing list http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
