Importing mksh in base

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.

Doesnt pdksh have a "sh" compatible mode iirc when you
invoke it via a path of sh it behaves as a traditional
bourne shell, also if IIRC Openbsd is doing just that,
/bin/sh -> /bin/pdksh (hard link)


-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org