Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 16:44:33 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <201901270044.x0R0iXvj083450@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> of "Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:54:12 -0800." <32153.1548546852@kaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <32153.1548546852@kaos.jnpr.net>, "Simon J. Gerraty" writes: > Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > > Interactively ksh93's command completion listing looks unconventional > > but it functions the same. > > > > However programmatically it's the standard. Large commercial vendors, > > like Oracle, still require ksh for its array handling among other > > things. > > pdksh (hence I assume mksh) has had array support for ages. > The only thing I ever found it useful for was cd history, > and I actually have an implementation of that for sh that does not need > arrays. IIRC it's not compatible. > > > It has that advantage. For embedded this is an advantage. However if > > embedded is using ksh as a scripting language mksh and pdksh aren't > > As noted earlier I've used [pd]ksh as shell for 30 years. > I do *not* write ksh scripts (except for .kshrc etc ;-) > > The beauty of ksh as interactive shell is it's (mostly) compatability > with /bin/sh - which scripts should be written in. Looking at ksh93-devel sources there is a SHOPT_BASH option, which emulates a Bash shell. The emulation is not complete though. 14-06-02 +When compiled with the SHOPT_BASH and run with the name bash, the shell now uses dynamic scoping for name() and function name. In addition the builtins declare and local are supported. The SHOPT_BASH option is on by default in the Makefile. More work remains with the bash compatibility option. > > Now on some systems (HPUX springs to mind ;-) /bin/sh is so bad that > one has to use ksh to run scripts - but they are still sh scripts. IMO HP/UX is as good as dead. I've never had anything good to say about HP/UX. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201901270044.x0R0iXvj083450>