Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:59:02PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Indeed. But it also probably doesn't meet many other needs. A quick > > check shows 54 failed tests just on t0000-basic.sh. I don't think it's > > something we should even consider. > > Yeah, we have visited this off and on over the years (links below). > There are some modernized ksh variants that work OK (like mksh), but I > think we've declared ksh93 as not worth it. Just to clarify what was said on that thread: ksh93 is not a version. There is at least ksh93u+ and ksh93v-, which are *completely* different. -- Felipe Contreras
