Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 09/29/17 06:38 PM, Martijn Dekker wrote:
> > Op 29-09-17 om 14:16 schreef Stephane Chazelas:
> >> 2017-09-29 11:59:52 +0200, Martijn Dekker:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Ouch, quite of lot of nasty bugs. Have you reported them to
> >> Solaris?
> >
> > No, because I thought ksh88 is no longer being developed. Is that incorrect?
>
> It is true that ksh88 is no longer being developed, but the Solaris
> /usr/xpg4/bin/sh is a fork of ksh88, modified for standards compliance,
> that is still being maintained, and bugs fixed as necessary. (Make sure
> you're testing with that version, not stock ksh88 or /usr/bin/ksh, as you
> will get different results in areas historical ksh behavior deviates from
> the standards.)
Is Oracle planning to run a SUSv7-tc2 certification?
My impression is that as a result of various modification in the standard, more
than trivial bug-fixes need to be applied on ksh88 to make it SUSv7-tc2
compiant.
The fact that ksh93 does not seem to be closer to the current standard makes it
hard to select a POSIX shell today.
My impression is that today, the POSIX enhanced Bourne Shell (bosh) is closer
to
the standard than ksh88.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
