> I did agree (and put it in email) that ksh93 is actually better in this > case since there is a way to turn off the builtins. Where I don't agree > is that the writer of the script should have to know to do that when > ksh93 is operating as pfksh93. > >
What I was planning to do for pfksh was to call getexecuser() before running any built-in that is bound to a pathname and if it indicates that it needs a pfexec(), then I would run pfexec rather than the built-in. This way the user doesn't need to know which ones to turn off, it will happen automatically. However, I only plan to check for a specific built-in once so this means that any changes to the profile that occur once the shell has started will not take effect. Let me know whether this would resolve the pfksh problem. David Korn dgk at research.att.com
