>Glenn Fowler wrote: >> the issue here is a 3rd party providing a foo(1) >> documentation notwithstanding >> the fact that solaris foo(1) meets all standards is useless to the 3rd party >> if solaris foo(1) has non-standard extensions expected by solaris users > >That's unfortunate - but IMO we should not make that ksh93/AST's burden. >I was simply wrong with my patch. IMO the AST builtins only need to >conform to POSIX, if anyone needs more in Solaris they have to turn off >the builtins first or address the Solaris-extened versions explicitly by >full path.
So you are proposing that the *default* for ksh93 is to break scripts which use Solaris specific flags to commands? That is not just a minor incompatibility with ksh93. Casper
