On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 04:33:08PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > 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? >
that's correct. > 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. > ok, your point is a good one too. i had been trying to keep sh(1) trim. i think the general idea is if you need more of an explanation, it's in ksh(1). but on balance i guess i'm ok with the addition to sh.1 too. jmc
