On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > my argument boils down to: sh(1) is small and has no examples. adding > them changes the (deliberate) nature of the page. ksh(1) is what you > read when you can;t get to sleep. > > why is it wrong to add your example to ksh(1)? why would that leave the > reader disadvantaged?
I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions. Occasionally useful when you want to write scripts that are usable outside of OpenBSD with /bin/sh as a tagline. Not very likely to happen.
