On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Patrick Geisler wrote:
> Sorry if this is well-known but I searched through the list archives and
> didn't
> find anything on point.
>
> In short, ksh93 is masking off the upper bits of my hex numbers where ksh88
> did not.
> My question is, is this by design? A bug
With my ksh93 Version JM 93t+ 2010-03-05 I get what you expect
$ typeset -i16 HEX=16#ff
$ print $HEX
16#
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:43:52 -0800
> From: patgeis...@gmail.com
> To: ast-users@lists.research.att.com
> Subject: [ast-u
All,
Sorry if this is well-known but I searched through the list archives and
didn't
find anything on point.
In short, ksh93 is masking off the upper bits of my hex numbers where ksh88
did not.
My question is, is this by design? A bug? A LOCALE issue? If it's
configurable, how
do I get the old be
