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. -- Kevin Schoedel <[email protected]> VA3TCS _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
