From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Mar 31 14:54:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from holly.calldei.com (adsl-208-191-146-189.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [208.191.146.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A01537B9CC for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:54:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@holly.calldei.com) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.calldei.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02576; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:54:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:54:57 -0600 From: Chris Costello To: Doug Barton Cc: Christian Weisgerber , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed new Bourne shell init files Message-ID: <20000331165457.A2556@holly.calldei.com> Reply-To: chris@calldei.com References: <20000331224327.Y581@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.4i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday, March 31, 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > In my mind there is a difference between items that are > freebsd-exclusive (like set -o and alias) and items that we have unique > implementations of, like export. The latter are available on other > platforms, and therefore, IMO we should follow the more generally accepted > format. Extending that argument to either not take advantage of features > unique to FreeBSD (silly and wasteful) or to doing everything FreeBSD'ish > just because we can (teaches a bad lesson) goes too far in either > direction for my taste. ``set -o'', ``alias'', and ``export'' are all portable. A few options for ``set -o'' may not be, but otherwise they are. Where did you get the idea that the first two were FreeBSD-exclusive? -- |Chris Costello |To be, or not to be, those are the parameters. `---------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message