On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 06:56:24PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > E.g., grep(1) can be approximated with:
> > >
> > > shgrep () {
> > > ...
> >
> > Right...
> > ... for the log: ksh93 has builing "grep" functionality using the
> > ~(G)pattern stuff, e.g.
>
> We're aware :)
>
> > > While I really like ksh93, I do think that *requiring* these scripts to
> > > *all* be written in ksh93 is too much.
> >
> > They don't need to be written _all_ in ksh93 but I would prefer that the
> > more complex scripts use ksh93 since these are usually affecting the
> > startup time and ksh93 will usually result in a very large performance
> > boost for such scripts (see Moinak's comments about "configure" scripts,
> > some of the scripts which need 2mins with the original Bourne shell run
> > with less than 10 seconds with ksh93).
>
> These are not autoconf configure scripts we're talking about.
>
> I think a KSH93 version of smf_include.sh that uses more built-ins would
> be great, but then we'd have to manage code duplication until the day
> arrives that we feel fine mandating KSH93 for SMF method scripts. I
> wouldn't mind that code duplication, but others might.
I think the performance improvement that ksh93 could bring would make a
very interesting RFE. I don't really think it's this project's job.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/security-discuss/attachments/20081106/4a782315/attachment.bin>
