Re: Replacements for regular shell builtins

[Paul Eggert]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> POSIX XRAT also mentions that the simplest implementation for finding
> regular builtins via exec is to have each builtin utility also be the
> 8-byte file:
> $0 "$@"

That would be good enough for coreutils.  I would prefer an
implementation like this to having separate executables for each such
utility.  These executables are for pedants only, so there's no point
wasting much of our time with them.

Perhaps you could prepare a patch along those lines?  We'd have to get
copyright papers signed for you of course, but you know the drill.

> Also, remember that not all shells follow POSIX by providing all 17
> regular built-ins; for example, ash does not have alias or unalias, and
> bash does not have newgrp.

For these utilities we can simply insist on a POSIX shell.  Pedants
(who are the only audience here, really) won't object to such a
requirement.