Roland Mainz wrote:
> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>>> CR #6800113 ("We need a /usr/xpg4/bin/printf utility for SUS
>>> conformance")
>> Is there a incompatibility between xpg4 printf and /usr/bin/printf?
> explains the difference:
> -- snip --
> Notes:
> - The only difference between /usr/bin/printf and /usr/xpg4/bin/printf
> is
>   that /usr/bin/printf's "%s" precision option counts in screen columns
>   for SystemV backwards compatibity (e.g. a "screen column" means a
>   character which only spans one column - there are multibyte characters
>   which span more than one column).
> -- snip --
> Or short: The current /usr/bin/printf is _not_ POSIX/SUS conformant and
> cannot be fixed because it must behave (in this case) like the original
> Solaris version. Therefore we need a /usr/xpg4/bin/printf to handle this
> case (ksh93's "printf" version will behave like /usr/xpg4/bin/printf
> _without_ being bound to a PATH element (Don Cragun signed this off)).
That doesn't sound like what I thought we agreed to.  I thought
ksh93's printf built-in would be bound to /usr/xpg4/bin/printf.
Then for users whose $PATH had /usr/bin before /usr/xpg4/bin,
they would get /usr/bin/printf instead of the built-in so script
behavior would not change.

 - Don
> ----
> Bye,
> Roland

Reply via email to