On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:39:00 +0100 Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >so even though the script has worked, it will eventually fail on > >some conforming posix implementation
> While this is true, it proofs the point that replacing a > script interpreter with another brings risk (and clearly also breakage). > Since ksh93's "printf" does not accept any options, why does it parse > the options anyway? I sort of answered this in a previous post (our posts crossed in transit), but just to be clear: almost all of the ast/ksh utilities accept options in order to support the self-documentation options provided by the ast optget(3) the '--???' option to almost all ast/ksh utilities lists the self-documenting options in man page format before we did this almost all of our utility implementations (specifically the ones *I* own) were out of sync with the man pages ksh93 getopts uses ast optget(3), and this has saved me much grief when revisting scripts I wrote and forgot about months/years ago -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
