Subject: Re: Tab completion in /bin/sh
To: J Chapman Flack <email@example.com>
From: Richard Rauch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/02/2005 19:21:26
My "funny way of putting it" was to emphasize that there would be a
non-zero loss if we took out what we currently have in /bin/ksh
and put in ksh93. It's not a "yeah, up to pdksh, they are identical,
and ksh93 does more."
No one ever suggested that the 'k' in 'ksh' did not stand for Korn.
Nor was it ever said, suggested, or implied that he was not the
original creator of ksh.
What does ksh93 offer us?
So far, tab-completion has been mentioned (which it seems to me
no one would object to adding to /bin/sh and/or /bin/ksh).
Additionally, a bunch of programming features were suggested,
but as stated in an article written by Korn himself, these
features bring it onto a par with languages like "PERL". If
looking to add a programming language, shouldn't we start with
widely used ones like "PERL"?
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/