On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:13:19PM -0700, David Powell wrote:
> >> It's a small issue and the
> >> proposed solution is well worth the time/effort.
>
> It hasn't been made clear that the proposed solution is "well worth
> the time/effort". For starters, I haven't seen a proposed solution,
> only a suggestion that ksh93 could eliminate a few uses of sed.
Also, it's possible to do amazing things with sh alone.
E.g., grep(1) can be approximated with:
shgrep () {
found=1
while read line
do
case "$line" in
*${1}*) found=0; echo "$line"; break;;
esac
done < "$2"
return $found
}
Yes, it's an approximation, and it's not entirely safe (echo will
interpret escape codes in its arguments).
> Finally, while moving to ksh93 isn't a big deal, it is something else
> that consumers would need to do -- something that could be the one
While I really like ksh93, I do think that *requiring* these scripts to
*all* be written in ksh93 is too much.
Nico
--
