2 ms·
"The New Kornshell" (2nd ed) was published in 1995, when POSIX.2 was a thing, and there was a separate "Shell and Utilities Language Committee". In 1997, that
by LukeShu 6y ago
"The New Kornshell" (2nd ed) was published in 1995, when POSIX.2 was a thing, and there was a separate "Shell and Utilities Language Committee".
In 1997, that committee (the 1003.2 committee) merged with several other committees (including the 1003.1 committee) to form a unified committee called the "Austin Group". The Austin Group publishes a their work as a combined 1003.1; there is no longer a separate 1003.2 standard or committee.
There are still several other separate "1003.x" standards+committees for languages other than C and Shell that did not become part of the Austin Group (such as 1003.5 for the POSIX Ada interface). But 1003.2 is no longer one of those separate standards+committees.
If Korn were to write that sentence today, he might instead write "ksh is intended to conform to the Shell Language Standard developed by the Austin Group and published as IEEE POSIX 1003.1 Volume 3."
- chasil 6y agoLet me ask you another question. If I was to write another article, "Breaking the chains of POSIX," where do you think I should focus? POSIX job control was a soft target, and I had imagined my next focus to be the "local" keyword in shell functions. Do you have suggestion on a better weakness in POSIX to encourage improvement? Microsoft's powershell is evolving, and the POSIX shell is ossified. I think the POSIX shell standard must evolve to remain competitive. If you agree, where should this improvement be encouraged?