Re: ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-06 Thread Martijn Dekker
Op 06-10-17 om 18:05 schreef Joerg Schilling: > Martijn Dekker wrote: [...] >> That's not surprising because ksh88 forks its subshells the classical >> way; this is ostensibly a bug introduced along with non-forking >> subshells in ksh93 (as evidenced by the fact that forcing the subshell >> to be

Re: ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-06 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-10-06 17:28:21 +0200, Martijn Dekker: [...] > Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. In fact, ksh93 does not have a > 'times' builtin at all -- it defaults to an alias: > > $ type times > times is an alias for '{ { time;} 2>&1;}' [...] Which causes some compliance issues like: https://github.c

Re: ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-06 Thread Joerg Schilling
Martijn Dekker wrote: > > > > the builtin command "times" does not create POSIX compliant output. > > Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. In fact, ksh93 does not have a > 'times' builtin at all -- it defaults to an alias: > > $ type times > times is an alias for '{ { time;} 2>&1;}' >From my

Re: ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-06 Thread Martijn Dekker
Op 06-10-17 om 15:26 schreef Joerg Schilling: > Martijn Dekker wrote: > >> Funny how ksh93 deviates on at least this aspect, apparently >> intentionally, and seems hyper-compliant in other aspects, like >> disabling local variables with 'typeset' in POSIX functions. > > The fact that typeset doe

Re: ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-06 Thread Joerg Schilling
Martijn Dekker wrote: > Funny how ksh93 deviates on at least this aspect, apparently > intentionally, and seems hyper-compliant in other aspects, like > disabling local variables with 'typeset' in POSIX functions. The fact that typeset does not work in POSIX function to create local variables d

ksh93 compliance [was: FYI: ksh88 (/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) ...]

2017-10-05 Thread Martijn Dekker
Op 05-10-17 om 18:35 schreef stephane.chaze...@gmail.com: > Note that I'm not under the impression that ksh93 aimed for > POSIX compliant. For instance, it did explicitely break POSIX > compliance (and backward compatibility) when the <> redirection > operator changed from being short for 0<> to s