On 9/22/06, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > > > The name libcmd is significant because it is a library which can be > > > referenced using > > > builtin -f cmd commandname > > > to load one of the commands located in libcmd. > > > The name 'cmd' is a well known location to find those commands for > > > dynamically linked versions of ksh93. Renaming the library will break > > > existing scripts like our and this is not acceptable. > > > > Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation. > > > > If it *did* need to be renamed, would there be a barrier to having an > > alias? Just have the "-f <x>" handler compare the string against > > "cmd" and use an alternate name for that one case. (Not pretty, I > > know, but doesn't seem to pose any obvious problems.) > > From a perspective of consensual software design, it is not a good idea to > use a generic name like "cmd", better would be "kshcmd".
ksh93 libcmd exists since a long time and renaming the library will break existing scripts and will not be portable unless libcmd on all other platforms gets renamed, too. The name is defined by AT&T and not J?rg Schilling. Irek
