Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:32:34 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: scott@statsci.com Cc: freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/2803: /bin/sh 'for' statement vs IFS setting problem Message-ID: <Mutt.19970224093234.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <m0vynUk-0006uFC@apple.statsci.com>; from Scott Blachowicz on Feb 23, 1997 15:38:14 -0800 References: <199702230640.WAA23740@freefall.freebsd.org> <Mutt.19970223100620.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <m0vynUk-0006uFC@apple.statsci.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Scott Blachowicz wrote: > > 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 :-). Features, not bugs. :-)) > So, I guess my bug report should be withdrawn if the idea is to maintain bug > compatibility with ksh... The idea is to maintain compatibility with Posix, but this means in effect to maintain bug compatibility with ksh, yes. Btw., the traditional /bin/sh has never really been defined in its behaviour. Thus, the bug compatibility you've seen between the various SysV systems has only one reason: they're using an identical source code. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970224093234.j>