Hi Nico,
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to (hopefully) clarify a couple of your
questions last week on some compatiblity items below...
April
> X-Unix-From: Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM Wed Sep 20 13:56:21 2006
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:56:18 -0500
> From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM>
> To: James Carlson <James.D.Carlson at Sun.COM>
> Cc: Don Cragun <don.cragun at Sun.COM>, PSARC-EXT at sac.sfbay.sun.com,
April.Chin at eng.sun.com, ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org,
roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
> Subject: Re: Korn Shell 93 Integration [PSARC-EXT/2006/550 Timeout:
09/27/2006]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:23:57PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > Don Cragun writes:
> > > standard-compliant /usr/xpg4/bin/sh with ksh93. Thus this project
> > > needs to be aware of potential compatibility problems. See COMPAT file
> > > for a list of known incompatibilities between ksh93 and Solaris ksh.
> >
> > What's the plan here? Some of those incompatibilities seem rather
> > stark to me. Will incompatible changes be made to the open source
> > version in order to keep compatibility with the old ksh? Or will the
> > Solaris-integrated ksh93 be made incompatible with the open source
> > version? Or do we intend to break compatibility in our own
> > /usr/bin/ksh in the future?
> >
> > I realize that the complete set of answers might not yet be known, but
> > is there a plan of some sort?
>
> Incompatibility (1) seems likely to break a lot of scripts (I am fond of
> function() function-declaration syntax, so my scripts would break).
>
> Incompatibility (9)... Does this mean pattern matching in the same
> statement/command? Or subsequently for the rest of the script? Sounds
> like a bug.
>From the COMPAT file:
9) In ksh93, pattern matching following a redirection symbol works only
in interactive shell, not in scripts.
The above refers to pattern matching in the same statement.
For example, in a ksh93 script, "echo hi >> foo*" will write to the file
literally named "foo*" rather than to a file whose name matches the pattern
(starts with the string "foo") In Solaris ksh, the same script will
write to a file matching the pattern. I'll add the example.
>
> I don't understand (6).
>From the COMPAT file:
6) Some built-ins don't allow options to be passed in any order as they
did previously. One known case is "typeset -8i <variable>", which
no longer works the same as "typeset -i8 <variable>" to set
an integer variable that is base 8.
In Solaris ksh, both "typeset -i8 foo" and "typeset -8i foo"
declare foo to be a base 8 integer. In ksh93, "typeset -i8 foo" declares
foo as a base 8 integer, but "typeset -8i foo" ignores the 8 and declares
foo to be an integer with the default base 10. I'll change this item
to a more explicit description.
>
> (10) will almost certainly break scripts.
>
> (12) could be finnessed (one signal per-line if stdout is a pipe, say).
>
> I'm guessing most of these could be finessed so that when invoked as
> "ksh" they go away.
>
> Nico
> --
