On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:42:12PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > 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. >
hi. there's a few possibilities with what to do with sh.1 and ksh.1, but i guess none of them are fully satisfactory. i suspect if we picked out the parts in ksh.1 already covered by sh.1 it would leave a not very helpful page. and it would take a lot of picking... jmc
