Re: Dashhh

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Hi Heiko.

On Thursday 17 November 2011, Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> >>
> >> I can understand the reasoning behind the relucatance of the dash crew
> >> to apply any of those changes to the main codebase.
> >> For me it is not so important that dash is fully POSIX compliant
> >>
> > But for many people, this is VERY important!
> I know and I never wanted to question that. That's why I pointed out 
> that for me it is not so important. I need a fast, powerful and 
> ressource-friendly non-interactive shell for my scripts and dash is 
> really kicking ass in this respect.
> >
> > (Still, it seems to me that your proposed changes would leave dash
> > POSIX-compliant, so there's no need to venture into a discussion
> > of the merits of POSIX-compatibility).
> OK. Although I always thought that the POSIX standard defines a minimum 
> feature set that should be shared among all shells out there. 
> [SNIP]
> Being stricly POSIX compliant does not prevent you from offering 
> additions and enhancements
> [SNIP]
That was exactly what I was trying to say (when I wrote "it seems to
me that your proposed changes would leave dash POSIX-compliant").  So
we agree on this, no worry :-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dash" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

Powered by Linux