Re: sh(1) vs. ksh(1)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20081025210534.GF321%apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za@localhost>,
Alan Barrett  <apb%cequrux.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> >Are there any objections to the following patch, which makes NetBSD
>> >ksh handle "...`...\"...`..." in the same way regardless of posix mode
>> >or non-posix mode?  To make the patch readable, I have not changed the
>> >indentation of the inside of the if...{...} block.  If the patch is
>> >acceptable then I would change the indentation before committing.)
>> 
>> Why not just turn on posix mode by default? It is less intrusive.
>
>I think posix mode is on by default in NetBSD ksh, but that's
>irrelevant to this problem.
>
>The problem is that, in what ksh calls "posix mode", the interpretation
>of "...`...\"...`..." is not compatible with POSIX.  However, in what
>ksh calls non-posix mode, the behaviour of "...`...\"...`..." is
>compatible with POSIX.  One would normally expect something named "posix
>mode" to turn *on* behaviour compatible with the POSIX standard, and the
>fact that ksh uses "posix mode" to turn *off* behaviour compatible with
>POSIX just seems broken.
>
>The previous comments in lex.c make it clear that the previous behaviour
>was deliberate, but the parts of the POSIX standard quoted in the
>previous comments do not support the previous behaviour.  So I believe
>that the previous authors misinterpreted POSIX, and the new comments (in
>my patch) say that.  Do you disagree?

Sure, just do what you propose then.

christos