Re: PATCH: Re: Compsys and KSH_AUTOLOAD

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart wrote:
> 
> "cvs annotate" says I committed the firet-ever revision of this, which
> included that test, but I'm afraid I don't remember why "declare" does
> not support -m unless it's "just in case" bash's declare later starts
> taking a -m option and we wanted to reserve it for future compatibility.

declare not accepting -m goes back to before the mailing list archives
so unless you have older archives, it won't be easy to find out. My
suspicion is that it was an oversight when -m was added but it may have
been bash compatibility.

The oldest list of declare options I see in the mailing list is
"LRUZfilrtux" (workers/1966). -U is the one non-ksh[1] option in there
(bash has fewer but ksh options may have been considered safe). We've
added a good few more since. -F is even incompatible with bash and that's
ksh93 too.  So I really don't see much harm in adding -m to declare's
options. Or do you disagree?

Oliver

[1] ksh88 or 93. -U is unsigned integer in pdksh