Re: sh: utilities implemented as a built-in

[Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

> No, not to that extent - ksh93 is supposed to be closest.
And it doesn't ssem to comply to that part.

> You could try ast-ksh from pkgsrc/shells if that is building these days.
Yes, it builds and call itself
	Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01
and behaves the same as OSX's ksh.

> Incidentally, the reason that the path search stuff isn't completely absurd,
Are we talking past each other? What I find absurd is what POSIX mandates and 
no shell known to me actually implements: if foo is implemented as a built-in
---note that, in POSIX speak, that's different from foo being a (regular) 
built-in utility---, then choke if foo is not found in PATH, but if it is, 
use the built-in implementation anyway.

> I'd really like (and expect) it to get used, rather than the /bin/test
> (/bin/[) clone which is built into the shell.
Mee too. But no shell I tried (including two variants of ksh93) actually 
behave that way.