[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ast-users
Subject:    [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: TAB-TAB completion patch #003
From:       gsf () research ! att ! com (Glenn Fowler)
Date:       2006-05-15 12:12:12
Message-ID: 200605151612.MAA60344 () raptor ! research ! att ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:49 +0200 I. Szczesniak wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Glenn Fowler <gsf@research.att.com> wrote:
> > i.e., I believe the default editor must be NONE
> > with ksh93 the user can always do the appropriate .profile / ENV file
> > magic for editor preference

> Why does bash then claim full POSIX conformance and default to emacs editing?

bash overclaimed
the posix text for the "set" special builtin utility
for the "User Portability Utilities option"
states that the default values for set -o options are off
an sh that starts with any of these on by default is not conforming

also note that only "set -o vi" mode is defined in the standard (see the rationale)
implementations are allowed to provide other command line editing modes
but those modes would be subject the the same "default value off" text

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]