Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:15:06 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@FreeBSD.ORG>, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Subject: Re: svn commit: r209221 - head/bin/sh Message-ID: <20100619051506.GA15449@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org> References: <201006152158.o5FLwerZ005440@svn.freebsd.org> <86ljafwypm.fsf@ds4.des.no> <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
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:36:51PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > 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. I tend to agree. I see no good point in trying to teach sh(1) to be something other than good, coherent, standards compliant system shell. For interactive use, tcsh(1) is much better anyways (but do not ever use it for scripting). Provided there are many good alternatives to those of us who does not like tcsh(1) for some reason, hacking upon bells and whistles for sh(1) seems controversial at best. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100619051506.GA15449>