Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >If I understood correctly, the /usr/bin (and /bin) builtins are > >compatible with the Solaris version. If that's true, then I think this > >is fine from an interface point of view. > > > >The fact that we need to crawl through code is a bad sign, though. > >Duplicate code introduces the possibility of making a change in one > >place and not the other, leading to bugs. It would be better to > >refactor, so that ksh93 and the Solaris binary can share common code. > > Seconded. I feel very uncomfortable about the whole "plain > commands as builtins" issue. Unless they are refactored into > common apps,
What do you mean with "are refactored into common apps" ? You mean that both should share the same souce ? That's easy from the engineering part (for example see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-June/000405.html). The hard part seems to be to hunt down a matching lawyer at Sun and let him/her sign the mythical contribution form. > I'd be in favour of not enabling any of the builtins > except those which commonly are (test, echo, [ ). Correctness trumps > performance. In theory, yes... that's why I accepted the massace of the builtins tagged with XPG4() for now. Finally we're taking about less than two hand full of builtins with a tiny codebase (which passes the SuSE testsuites and I've crawled through the sources, too) and IMO it's an overkill to disable them all. Or did you find any specific issue in the ksh93/AST implementation of these commands ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
