Re: printf %<n>s in UTF-8 is not always POSIX-compliant

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2012-02-15 11:05:19 +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> This sounds correct... We've never promised ksh mode would be a complete
> representation of ksh anyway.  I realise that, for historical reasons
> related to standards rather than zsh, you'd expect ksh mode to be POSIX
> compatible, but actually we don't tend to bother because ksh mode isn't
> that widely used and so doesn't get a lot of attention (I certainly
> never use it).  If you really want compatibility native zsh mode or sh
> mode are the sensible choices.

The problem is that on some machines, one has a symlink ksh -> zsh.
If I type ksh or run a script with #!/usr/bin/ksh, I expect this to
behave as a real ksh.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)