Darren J Moffat writes: > While it is ksh93 I don't think any of this really matters that much > because you have to explicitly ask for ksh93. On the other hand if this > same implementation was exporting this same functionality by default > when it was used as the implementation of /bin/sh I would feel very > differently. This still isn't the case to make ksh93 /usr/bin/ksh which > is where I think this type of issue matters most.
True enough, though, because of Indiana, we're already hacking our system scripts to comply with ksh93's differing requirements. Thus, you can stand on principle and declare that without such a case, no such "bugs" will ever be fixed, or you can dive in and do the work, even if it has no ARC blessing. It seems that many are doing the latter, which makes it de-facto (rather than de-jure) architecture. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
