April Chin wrote: > > On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:49 +0200 I. Szczesniak wrote: > > > On 5/15/06, Glenn Fowler <gsf at research.att.com> wrote: > > > > i.e., I believe the default editor must be NONE > > > > with ksh93 the user can always do the appropriate .profile / ENV file > > > > magic for editor preference > > > > > Why does bash then claim full POSIX conformance and default to emacs > editing? > > > > bash overclaimed > > the posix text for the "set" special builtin utility > > for the "User Portability Utilities option" > > states that the default values for set -o options are off > > an sh that starts with any of these on by default is not conforming > > > > also note that only "set -o vi" mode is defined in the standard (see the > rationale) > > implementations are allowed to provide other command line editing modes > > but those modes would be subject the the same "default value off" text > > I originally thought setting a default editor mode would be a good idea, > but after Glenn's comments, I discussed this with our standards expert. > He agrees that we should *not* set a default command-line editing > mode if EDITOR and VISUAL are not set and set -o vi|emacs|gmacs are not set. > > So, no, we should not be setting a default command-line editor in ksh93. > It would be violating POSIX standards.
Ok... I make a new version of the patch with that "default editor" stuff removed then... ... do you have an idea how we still get a default editor mode set in Solaris without violating the POSIX standard ? Editing /etc/profile as part of the Solaris upgrade/patch process may not be polite and crawling after each user's ~/.profile is even less polite than that... do you have any other ideas how this could be done ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
