Stefan Parvu wrote: > We should think to have /bin/sh as ksh93. It is elegant > and simple to do. Are there any objections why /bin/sh > cannot be a ksh93 ?
This is unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. It's already difficult enougth to convince Sun to switch /bin/ksh from ksh88 to ksh93 (even that tiny project caused serious UPROAR + tensions between Sun vs. customers - that's why I requested a seperate mailinglist (see http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss) to play the ball very low, avoid the flamewar in the main list and have a place to work on the technical details). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
