RE: [off-list] document(lang_*.xml)

This is absolutely my last post on the subject.

Daniel Veillard wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 02:59:56PM -0600, Roger Glover wrote:
> > Mike Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Some shells have a 'noclobber' option that controls whether or
> > > not '>' will overwrite an existing file or raise an error. How
> > > you set this option depends on what shell you're using.
> > > #!/bin/sh implies Bourne shell,
> >
> > In Posix-compliant systems (most modern UNIX variants, including all
> > formulations of Linux I have used), it implies Korn shell.  The original
> > Bourne shell does not have a "noclobber" feature at all.
>
>   Wrong... all unix I used had a Boune shell for /bin/sh

I assume your "used" is significantly past tense then.  Those who are
interested should check this link:
    http://www.uni-ulm.de/~s_smasch/various/shells/
which, though far from complete, is much more complete than either my
recollections or Daniel's.

My recent experience tends to run to those systems who have adopted the
POSIX shell for "/bin/sh", so it has skewed my worldview.  Those systems
include:
    o   AIX 4+
    o   HP-UX 10+
    o   IRIX 6+
All three use ksh as their Posix-compliant shell.  Before these experiences
I was an employee of Cray Research, which was the first to use the Korn
Shell as it's Posix-compliant "/bin/sh" back in the mid-90's.

The main holdout that have used commonly is Solaris.  In my last major
Solaris assignment the sys admin was a Posix-lover who hand-changed the
system to use "/bin/bsh" for Bourne shell and "/bin/sh" for Posix-compliant.


> Korn shell is "ksh" a version used on System V and AIX, but certainly
> not as /bin/sh, the syntax was hugely different.

David Korn's shell syntax is, without exception, a superset of Steven
Bourne's shell syntax.


>   All Linux ship with bash "Bourne Again shell" as /bin/sh
> which is backward compatible with the Bourne shell. This is actually
> stipulated by the Linux Standard Base.

Here I really blew it.  Mea maxima culpa.  From practice, I knew that the
Linux shell was Posix-compliant, but I did not know it was bash.  Back in
the early '90's when I first saw bash, it was definitely not like the Korn
shell.  Furthermore, there was no Posix shell yet, only a committee armed
with David Korn's 1988 spec and his 1993 source code.  I assumed on this
basis the "Posix shell implementation"=="Korn shell".  Again, my apologies
for posting this grossly incorrect information.

To the very best of my understanding, everything else I posted in that
message, *ESPECIALLY THE ALTERNATIVE SHELL SCRIPT*, is completely correct.


-- Roger Glover
   glover_roger@xxxxxxxxx



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list