On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:44:16 +0100 Darren J Moffat wrote: > Otherwise you are going to introduce pfksh93 with the current behaviour, > which is different to the existing pfksh, and then possibly change it > later. Thats not good and I don't see any value in doing that. I > believe this first phase project can be successful without introducing > pfksh93.
dgk is offline today but he is interested in getting pfexec right in ksh93 the best way would be for someone to distil whatever reams of docs pfexec implies into high level issues that outline sh(1)'s pfexec responsibilities was pfexec added to the sun /bin/ksh code? if so then the diffs from non-pfexec-ized to pfexec-ized ksh might be all that's needed to form the correct mapping onto ksh93 -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
