🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)

In comp.std.unix you write:

>From:  lwv27%CAS.bitnet@jade.Berkeley.EDU

>Does anyone have easily available a list of what tools are being
>proposed for the POSIX standard?  

Here's what's in 1003.2 (Draft 10).  This is more than just
"proposed", it is very close to an approved standard.  (There
certainly will be very few changes to this list.)  Note that 1003.2 is
targeted to shell scripts, NOT to interactive users, so no more (pg,
less or whatever), vi, or such.

	awk
	basename
	bc
	cat
	cd
	chgrp
	chmod
	cksum
	cmp
	comm
	cp
	cut
	date
	dd
	diff
	dirname
	echo
	ed
	env
	expr
	false
	find
	fold
	getconf
	getopts
	grep
	head
	id
	join
	kill
	ln
	locale
	localedef
	logger
	logname
	lp
	ls
	mailx
	mkdir
	mkfifo
	mv
	nohup
	od
	paste
	pathchk
	oax
	pr
	printf
	pwd
	read
	rm
	rmdir
	sed
	sh
	sleep
	sort
	stty
	tail
	tee
	test
	touch
	tr
	true
	tty
	umask
	uname
	uniq
	wait
	wc
	xargs

    As a separate option:
	ar
	make
	strip

    As a separate option:
	c89
	lex
	yacc

    As a separate option:
	asa
	fort77

1003.2a, which is targetted to users, contains the following:

	alias
	at
	batch
	bg
	compress
	crontab
	csplit
	ctags
	df
	du
	ex
	expand
	fc
	fg
	file
	jobs
	lint89
	man
	mesg
	more
	newgrp
	nice
	nm
	passwd
	patch
	ps
	renice
	split
	strings
	tabs
	talk
	tput
	unalias
	uncompress
	unexpand
	uudecode
	uuencode
	vi
	who
	write
	zcat

>				  Is there a reason for this list
>not to contain requirements for certain standard shell tools which
>are not necessarily a part of the 4.2 BSD/ System V.3 or before
>universe?  For instance, perl is quite popular tool which appears
>to be very useful for the same types of things for which  sed & awk are used.

I wasn't in this particular group, so I don't know if perl was
discussed, and I don't know perl.  However, if perl is just a "nicer"
way to do things than can also be done with sed and awk, I'm sure that
the reaction of the group would be that it is less widely used than
sed and awk, and provides no additional functionality.  Just being
easier to use is not NECESSARILY a telling argument.

>Is perl on the list of standard tools for a POSIX environment?  If
>not, is there a set of criteria being used other than existing practice
>(while no one is specifically shipping perl that I am aware of, it
>is running on many, if not most, types of Unix, as well as there being
>efforts for its presence under a number on non-Unix OSs I believe).

Existing practice is a criterium.  HOW widely used is also.  Also,
there should in general not be many ways to do the same thing.

David A. Willcox		"Just say 'NO' to universal drug testing"
Motorola MCD - Urbana		UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!udc!willcox
1101 E. University Ave.		INET: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Urbana, IL 61801		FONE: 217-384-8534


Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 28