No more discussion on this topic, for now. Let us make progress one step at a time, and discuss compliance one command at a time.
Ram On May 18, 2012 11:19 PM, "Lionel Cons" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-dev >
_______________________________________________ belenix-discuss mailing list http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
