Re: What version of korn shell?

From: Alan D Johnson (adjtech_at_usadatanet.net)
Date: 06/25/04

  • Next message: Alan D Johnson: "Re: [REPOST] fsck segfaults trying to repair HFS filesystem" 
    Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:29:46 -0400

    Frank Slootweg wrote:

    > Lothar Paltins <lpnews001@onlinehome.de> wrote:
    >
    >>Frank Slootweg wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I think that a more important question is why, in this day and age,
    >>>anyone would be using/wanting a Korn shell while, for all intents and
    >>>purposes (no, I haven't looked at this particular issue, i.e. array
    >>>limits), the (standard, i.e. /usr/bin/sh) POSIX shell is a compatible
    >>>superset of the Korn shell?
    >>
    >>Compatible to ksh88. Take a look at /usr/dt/examples/dtksh/ksh93.memo and
    >>the ksh93 man page for the advanced features of the ksh93. Some examples:
    >
    >
    > [list of ksh93 features deleted]
    >
    >>I think, bash has similar extensions, but I prefere ksh93 because of the
    >>better compatibility to old ksh88 scripts. So the question today isn't
    >>posix-shell or ksh, but bash or ksh93. Using the restricted posix-shell
    >>syntax is ok only for system scripts or for scripts that should be easily
    >>portable between different systems, IMHO.
    >
    >
    > Thanks, Lothar. That just shows that old geezers like me should keep
    > their trap shut when things are discussed which they don't know anything
    > about! :-)
    Isnt the idea of POSIX, PORTABLE? so that you can run it anywhere? (for
    the most part) everyone does it a little different for each sh, even
    posix isn't really "totally" portable, but it's close and it works, you
    need special stuff use perl.

  • Next message: Alan D Johnson: "Re: [REPOST] fsck segfaults trying to repair HFS filesystem"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: function definition syntax
      ... Always using POSIX ... portability - which I've always held there is not. ... common functionality with ksh than there ever will be with "sh". ... much easier - or at least possible - to write portable ksh scripts than ...
      (comp.unix.shell)
    • Re: Help regarding Date
      ... specific and often use of Posix creates problems. ... whose brains are stuck in a Windows world. ... spamming newsgroups with the replacements scripts for "Matt's Scripts." ... My short story exemplifies how code writers need to become more aware ...
      (perl.beginners)
    • Re: function definition syntax
      ... :>:>: And even easier to write portable POSIX scripts. ... I said POSIX scripts, not sh scripts. ... : portability. ... :> sample output of echo to determine which functionality is used - ...
      (comp.unix.shell)
    • Re: question about Dash
      ... bash isn't - well it has whats called bash-isms ... Both are POSIX compliant as far as I can tell. ... so it cannot run scripts using them. ... shell on many UNIXes, and sometimes was even used as /bin/sh. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Back to last driectory
      ... >>vendors write scripts with that limitation in mind. ... person ever asked for or about a posix compliant script. ...
      (comp.unix.shell)