My understanding is that we do not need to include these built-ins in the
ARC case, since they are not enabled by default.
However, if we do include them in the case, we need to document them,
and we did not intend to make this into a documented feature of ksh93.
April
> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David.Comay at Sun.COM
> To: April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com>
> cc: ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: update on ksh93 issues
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> > These 35 built-ins will not be part of the namespace...there
> > will not be a /usr/ast/bin directory nor any files.
> > They will only be available in ksh93 as built-ins, which have
> > pathname binding to /usr/ast/bin. This means that if these
> > commands are called without a pathname prefix, the built-ins
> > will be invoked in ksh93 if it finds /usr/ast/bin on the user's path first,
> > before finding an executable with that name. These built-ins
>
> Thanks for the clarification, April.
>
> In any case, this behavior - which seems rather unintuitive, at least
> to me - would seem to warrant being documented as part of the case.
> Again, perhaps it can be ARCed as something like "Uncommitted" if the
> PATH behavior is likely to change. But if it's an interface of some
> sort (and yes, behavior is an interface), then it should be part of the
> specification.
>
> dsc
