Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >> Is this one of those FOSS cases we are supposed to not get too deep into >> polishing the edges? > > I don't think so. ksh93 is more intrinsically becoming a core > component, that we build our system upon. It has a non-External > commitment. Therefore, I believe it deserves reasonable review. > Furthermore, from past experience, it seems that the project team and > even the upstream sources have been cooperative in making reasonable > changes required for Solaris. And sometimes, maybe even we can > benefit the wider ksh93 audience -- I think at least one of the issues > at stake here impacts all ksh93 on all platforms, not just Solaris. :-) > > (I guess, IMO, I feel like the ksh93 project is more like a friendly > peer project -- akin perhaps to something like Java or the C compilers > -- than an FOSS project where we are nothing more than a strict > consumer. If the ksh93 folks think differently, I'd like to hear so.) > > -- Garrett
I just love having my comments taken out of context. :-) My comment was about /usr/lib/shell vs. /usr/share/lib/share. We are we inventing here? Your concerns about "shell keywords" is pretty relevant, but it seems they already made their choice. - jek3
