Chet Ramey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/29/17 5:59 AM, Martijn Dekker wrote: > > I've been in correspondence with a few people who still seem to believe > > that AT&T ksh88 is POSIX compliant because POSIX was originally based on > > ksh88. On Solaris, to this day, /usr/xpg4/bin/sh is ksh88 and is > > considered "the POSIX compliant shell". > > It's not and never has been. > > The most obvious example is its lack of the "Posix functions" that Korn > introduced in ksh93 to make it conformant. There are a number of other > non-conformant behaviors, even without considering bugs (for instance, I > believe the `test' builtin isn't conformant with the Posix number-of- > arguments algorithm, but I don't have a version handy to test).
It may be that ksh86 did not support Bourne Shell functions, but ksh88 definitely does. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
