David Korn wrote: >> 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.
Wonderful! > 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. I think that is fine as long as you document that behaviour. I believe that is different to the way that pfksh that is shipped today works but I can live with that. > Let me know whether this would resolve the pfksh problem. Works for me. -- Darren J Moffat
