Thus spake Ben Harris ("BH> ") sometime Today...

BH> Before I bother composing a substantive reply, can I just check whether
BH> you're arguing that the AT&T ksh behaviour is POSIX conformant, or
BH> that NetBSD should ignore POSIX and follow AT&T ksh?  If the latter, I
BH> shall just shrug and ignore you.

:-)

Hi, Ben,

No, I was NOT suggesting that we should (blindly) ignore POSIX on this
issue, nor was I suggesting that we (blindly) follow AT&T ksh.  I was
merely reporting on shell behaviour I have witnessed since my "birth"
on UNIX.

Am I understanding from your inference, then, that POSIX has changed
the behaviour of -e as applied to () at some point?  If that's the case,
then I don't know of a single vendor with a POSIX compliant shell.  If
we're POSIX-compliant, I'll shut up, but I'll add that most people who
use make have made assumptions about sh's "old" behaviour while writing
their makefiles.

Shrug and ignore, if you must.  I'm not looking for a war, I'm just
making some observations.

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: We Come In Peace.