On 12 September 2012 16:37, <schoe...@kw.igs.net> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:37:35 +0200, Irek Szczesniak wrote >> Are there any objections to depreciate typeset -l and typeset -u in >> favor of typeset -M tolower and typeset -M toupper? The goal would be >> to map these two options to their -M counterparts and let ksh93 -n >> complain about their usage. > > A bit early, isn't it? ksh93t doesn't even have typeset -M. Running ksh93 -n > is > not very useful if its advice will break scripts on the majority of current > ksh93 installations.
An alternative would be to promote the use of typeset -M in both documentation and manpages. Right now it's a *lot* (not a *bit*, I say a *lot*) underdocumented and under-used. Likely a result that the English language and it's siblings in the indogerman/indoeuropean [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages] language family greatly dominate how computer languages are written and also dominate which kind of languages they can process; and of course the lack of standardization (except for EUC locales and GB18030). I'd love to see that playing field levelled a bit. Not that I think this wish will become true in my lifetime ;( Ced -- Cedric Blancher <cedric.blanc...@googlemail.com> Institute Pasteur _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list ast-developers@research.att.com https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
