Jean Delvare dixit: >Dear mksh developers,
Feel free to use the singular ☺ we’re all just one person, be it mksh, bash, ksh93, lynx, ncurses, xterm… all those projects are done by one person (sometimes even the same). >A customer of ours is migrating from ksh-93 to mksh. They reported the Interesting, but, depending on the scripts, probably hard (lots of other ksh93 extensions, such as float, will not be there either). [ all parts of a pipeline are run in subshells ] >I would like to ask if this is: > >1* A deliberate design decision, and this will never change. An implementation choice, and while the status of this was not set in stone for several years, some time ago (I’d have to look when) I decided to make it into a formal language feature, i.e. it will never change. Scripts can use this, e.g: # here, set +o foo is active cat "$@" | while …; do set -o foo; …; done # here, set +o foo is active again Dr. Werner Fink dixit: >the mksh can use co-processes as ksh can do Correct. >Btw: this behaviour of the mksh is docmented in the manual page of Correct. >The question rises, if it would be possible to a) let the last pipe >of the mksh not be a subshell and/or use shared memory area to make No. There is no “shared memory” on many mksh targets, and one of the biggest strength of mksh is that it behaves exactly the same across all supported targets. I think coprocesses are pretty usable for this in almost all cases (I did have one where they weren’t, but you can still often background a part, then play with fd redirection). >Werner > >-- > "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having > a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr Ah, yours too ☺ so let me pick a different sig… //mirabilos -- Solange man keine schmutzigen Tricks macht, und ich meine *wirklich* schmutzige Tricks, wie bei einer doppelt verketteten Liste beide Pointer XORen und in nur einem Word speichern, funktioniert Boehm ganz hervorragend. -- Andreas Bogk über boehm-gc in d.a.s.r
