Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:30:42 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, ache@nagual.pp.ru, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org, jilles@FreeBSD.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: svn commit: r209221 - head/bin/sh Message-ID: <20100617.153042.119882392285756102.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100617023441.008cd737@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20100617100315.GA37522@nagual.pp.ru> <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org>
Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> writes:
: I've been very supportive of Jilles work up to this point, and I think
: he's done a great job of making our sh functional and compliant as a
: scripting shell. However in my mind adding completion (and his
: suggested inclusion of the kill builtin) tips the balance from "good
: system shell" to more of an interactive shell, and that makes me
: wonder if this is the right direction to go in. If we want a good
: interactive bourne-based shell in the base I'd rather have the
: discussion about which one to import, rather than trying to have our
: sh catch up with the last 15 years of development in this area.
My main objection to sh growing lots of new functionality is the
embedded world. It is so much smaller than csh, like 1/3 the size.
I'd prefer we keep it small, or at least keep it buildable in the
small...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100617.153042.119882392285756102.imp>