On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:10:35PM +0000, Joseph Mayer wrote: > (Topic moved from misc@ https://marc.info/?t=154091182000002&r=1&w=2 > as it's a question about whether it's a bug:) > > > sh's man page (http://man.openbsd.org/sh#DESCRIPTION) says: > > "This version of sh is actually ksh in disguise. As such, it also > supports the features described in ksh(1). This manual page describes > only the parts relevant to a POSIX compliant sh." > > When I read that originally, I perceived it as that "sh" and "ksh" > normally would have equivalent behavior - which also seems logical > given that their binaries are byte-equivalent. > > The meaning I gather from the sentence is that sh and ksh are > equivalent and that instead the man pages will describe different > functionalities that are actually available in both. > > Can that phrase in sh's man page be tweaked so that my misunderstanding > no longer is possible? > > Do you find my misunderstanding a reasonable reading? > > Joseph >
morning. you may have a point, i agree. our sh is really ksh, but when run as sh it has a few differences. i think it is mainly the case that there is some functionality not supported when run as sh. previously the sh page was the same as the ksh page, but with some of this functionality trimmed out. i'm not sure where we would stop at attempting to describe how the shells runs. do we need a list of differences, or is it enough to say they differ in small ways? when you say "Can that phrase ... be tweaked", i guess i would ask you: can you provide a diff so that your "misunderstanding is no longer possible"? it doesn;t have to be a diff - just give me the text you think is missing. personally i'd prefer to avoid trying to get into this discussion. you should just use ksh(1) as the reference page for what the shell can do, and sh(1) if you want to limit yourself to those aspects described by posix. jmc
