Finn Thain dixit:
>Anyway, the command must still be "found", which means a PATH search.
No, a search through things like the list of builtins and, in
some cases, the list of shell functions or keywords or whatever,
is also involved in “being found”.
But, back a step… what are we trying to do here, anyway?
I’m not, to be honest, particularily interested in reading,
interpreting and *shudder* defending POSIX… mksh is “mostly
compliant” and that’s it. Although it tends to follow POSIX,
ksh93 is by far the greater influence; yet, when it’s clearly
buggy, bogus, or using a scoping model different from mksh’s,
other influences (even zsh or GNU bash) may occur or I just do
my thing by myself.
Let’s just be happy it works this well.
And, to close the circle, in most of the odd scenarios ormaaj
looked at, mksh ended up with the best results, or still pretty
good ones (and, in one case, “opinionable” ones but still good
even if you were of the other opinion); GNU bash and AT&T ksh93
seem to lose at corner cases.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Sorry, I’m annoyed today and you came by as an Arch user. These are the
perfect victims for any crime against humanity, like systemd, feminism
or social democracy.
-- Christoph Lohmann on [email protected]
