brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2021-05-04 at 15:09:54, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > My aim here was to discover if we had any reason to think that "local"
> > was less universally implemented than other POSIX/C89-plus features we
> > rely on. It seems that it's not.
>
> "local" is missing in AT&T ksh.
It's not missing, it's supported only in "functions", which have a
different syntax in ksh:
function f { local x="foo"; echo $x; }; f
--
Felipe Contreras
