April Chin wrote: > ... > > The compatibility problems with existing customer sh scripts > and sh scripts in the system were considered too risky. > > At this point, we are again considering /bin/sh replacement with ksh93, > but as Roland says, we are taking it a step at a time, starting with > replacing /bin/ksh first.
> I believe the incompatibilities between Bourne > shell and ksh93 may be greater than those between ksh88 (or rather, > Solaris's version of ksh88, /bin/ksh) and ksh93, which could make > the /bin/sh migration more difficult. Actually, I've had reasonable experience with migrating scripts from /bin/sh and /bin/ksh to ksh93 and encountered most of the problems with the latter conversion. /bin/sh just does not have as many features, and most are available in ksh93. Most /bin/sh constructs work fine in ksh93. The most annoying issue in my experience is the bsd/sv controversy around echo -n "..." and echo "...\c". In ksh* this became print -n "...", following the advise to never change an interface without changing the name. Cheers, Henk
