Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:26:40 -0500 From: Chet Ramey To: khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU Subject: Re: KSH is pdksh Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, dkarr AT tcsi DOT com, chet AT po DOT cwru DOT edu Reply-To: chet AT po DOT cwru DOT edu Message-ID: <1010125152640.AA39045.SM@nike.INS.CWRU.Edu> Read-Receipt-To: chet AT po DOT CWRU DOT Edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-In-Reply-To: Message from khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU of Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:07:04 -0600 (CST) (id ) > Nope, bash is not ksh. There are quite a few ksh93 features that are not > implemented in bash (and possibly quite a few from ksh88 days, but I > don't have details on those). pd-ksh doesn't implement them either. It attempts to emulate ksh88, with a few ksh93 features that POSIX specifies. The ksh88 and ksh93 features that bash does not implement (with suggested bash equivalents for a few) are listed in the FAQ. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ( ``Discere est Dolere'' -- chet) Chet Ramey, CWRU chet AT po DOT CWRU DOT Edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple