Geoff Clare <ge...@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> wrote:
> wendlin1974 wrote:
> > whystopnow wrote:
> > > ...
> That forum is not for general questions about ksh93. It is a place to
> discuss issues related to the integration of ksh93 into OpenSolaris.

The "appropriate" forum is https://mailman.research.att.com/pipermail/ast-users/;
however, don't post there with a newby question or you
WILL get flamed. C.U.S. is better. And we're nicer, too

For a survey of past programmatic solutions, see:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....bc8f9e5d362bf2

And, for completeness, a survey of various probes scripts,
including the above:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a0bcd47c5f2d6c

You should be aware that I have stopped developing whichshell,
in large part because of a recent interchange between Zdenek
Sekera and I. The canonical shells are both changing too fast,
and whose feature sets are converging to standards compliance,
making version discrimination problematic. Another modality
must now be pursued rather than detection of documented syntax
and exploitation of shell idioms.

The aforementioned advice given is probably sufficient. Try:

shver=` print -- ${.sh.version//!([0-9-])/} ` 2>/dev/null # not tested

It's too bad my function toolkit for version compliance is
not yet ready for distribution. It both emulates modern shell
functionality for older shells (like autoloading) as well as
providing a transparent abstraction layer to redirect autoloading
to the appropriate function version (that is, one for each shell),
plus a downward compatible function library for the "lowest
common denominator" of expected functionality written in
acceptably efficient code. Now _that_ would have been the
real solution....

=Brian