Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:38:14 -0800 From: Scott Blachowicz <scott@statsci.com> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/2803: /bin/sh 'for' statement vs IFS setting problem Message-ID: <m0vynUk-0006uFC@apple.statsci.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:06:20 %2B0100." <Mutt.19970223100620.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <199702230640.WAA23740@freefall.freebsd.org> <Mutt.19970223100620.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) wrote:
> When in doubt about some feature, always ask the Korn shell first.
> This is the shell blessed by Posix, with all its crocks.
Blech...phooey...no comment (OK, maybe small comment :-)).
> We are not aiming to become bug-compatible with the obsolete Bourne shell,
> but we're aiming to become bug-compatible with Posix (which is basically ==
> bug-compatible with ksh).
Yeah...I reran my test script on all those systems with /bin/ksh instead of
/bin/sh and for the systems that actually had a /bin/ksh, I get the same
results as FreeBSD.
> Strictly spoken, all these systems should ship with the Korn shell as
> /bin/sh if they claim Posix compliance. The Korn shell itself also
> thinks it were sh(1):
Except they probably don't wanna deal with the tech support fallout of dealing
with a different set of bugs :-).
So, I guess my bug report should be withdrawn if the idea is to maintain bug
compatibility with ksh...
Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div)
1700 Westlake Ave N #500
scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109
Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0vynUk-0006uFC>