Joseph Kowalski wrote: > > > From: Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> > ... > > (I do still harbour some concern regarding any future ksh(1) or sh(1) > > migration, however, but that's another case). > > Very interesting question. > > Don (as in Cragun), would having a default edit mode for ksh93 prevent > it from eventually becoming the SUS conforming ksh?
AFAIK there is no "SUS-conforming ksh", only a "SUS-conforming sh" ... and AFAIK the answer is "no" because the standard doesn't prevent the implementation of extra startup files and does not standartize the content of such files, including /etc/profile and /etc/ksh.kshrc ... those files are sourced after the shell started. AFAIK the only requirement is that the shell must not have any "set -o" flags turned on at startup - but this is before the point where any startup files (like /etc/profile, ~/.profile, /etc/ksh.kshrc and ~/.kshrc) are sourced. ---- Bye, Roland P.S.: We may want (not this case, not this case, not...) to adjust ksh93 to source /etc/sh.shrc and ~/.shrc when launched as /usr/bin/sh or /usr/xpg4/bin/sh and then ask the standard people to include this in the standard (because it is usefull... :-) ). -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
