On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:10:35PM +0000, Joseph Mayer wrote: > (Topic moved from misc@ https://marc.info/?t=154091182000002&r=1&w=2 > as it's a question about whether it's a bug:) > > > sh's man page (http://man.openbsd.org/sh#DESCRIPTION) says: > > "This version of sh is actually ksh in disguise. As such, it also > supports the features described in ksh(1). This manual page describes > only the parts relevant to a POSIX compliant sh." > > When I read that originally, I perceived it as that "sh" and "ksh" > normally would have equivalent behavior - which also seems logical > given that their binaries are byte-equivalent. > > The meaning I gather from the sentence is that sh and ksh are > equivalent and that instead the man pages will describe different > functionalities that are actually available in both. > > Can that phrase in sh's man page be tweaked so that my misunderstanding > no longer is possible? > > Do you find my misunderstanding a reasonable reading? > > Joseph >
A differently named exectutable can do completely different things. sh(1) describes a subset of ksh(1). There are a few exceptions, see http://man.openbsd.org/ksh#Strict_Bourne_shell_mode AFAKS the only thing not explicitly mentioned is that starting a shell like sh will set the sh option. -Otto
