Jason McIntyre: > - i'm ok with the getopt.1 and ksh.1 parts > - i'm not ok with the addition to sh.1 > > no one has really given a good reason why they think it should go into > sh.1. i've given a few why i think it should not.
My understanding is that sh.1 is a subset of ksh.1, describing the POSIX-standardized functionality. Am I wrong? ksh.1 has very little in the way of examples, but I think figuring out the correct getopts idiom is difficult enough to warrant an example. The problem is that if I'm trying to write a portable shell script, I will refer to sh.1. I will not check ksh.1 for examples. But since you are the principal author of sh.1, I'm certainly deferring to your judgment. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
