On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:55:06 -0800 (PST) Don Cragun wrote: > Yes. And this is why I've been concerned about built-ins in ksh93 that > replace /usr/xpg*/bin variants of standard utilities without adjusting > for the differences in the way the standards require them to work.
Don et al, thanks for all of the input background: reasoning for ast/ksh having its own getconf builtin goes to the days when many systems had 0 getconf's -- this includes uwin where we had to provide 1 full implementation from scratch we stuck with it to fill in native system holes to smooth differences between systems from the perspective of a script writer the underlying astgetconf() function, a string interface, also cleaned up ast C code nicely -- no #ifdef's for _SC_* etc., and besides, there's no edict against _SC_* being enum's immune to #ifdef foreground: I am 99% close to getting full solaris functionality (achieved in the edge cases by deferring to the underlying geconf on PATH) and hope to get the final 1% today the discourse has been good and has tightened up the ast implementation for all target architectures, especially w.r.t. diagnostics which brings me to a nit about the solaris getconf diagnostics almost all errors, except "unknown name", punt to a usage message it would be nice to be directed to details like "name requires path" or "name does not require path" instead of usage Don, one more question: is there a general rule laid out somewhere for the difference between FOO and _FOO, or is it on a name by name basis? -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
