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).
Erm, in this specific case it seems to be a _bug_ in Solaris's /usr/bin/printf (see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2008-February/005922.html for my analysis and the comment that the POSIX test suite fails in this case) > Since ksh93's "printf" does not accept any options, why does it parse > the options anyway? ksh93's "printf" option supports at least the AST standard options, e.g. --man, --troff etc. (and one possible (usefull) enhancement may be to port the -u<fd> option from "print" to "printf"). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
