Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:43:33 +0100 From: Alex de Kruijff <akruijff@dds.nl> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Cc: rank1seeker@gmail.com, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Interactive /bin/sh Message-ID: <52AE5AC5.9050206@dds.nl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1312151750230.41208@wonkity.com> References: <20131215.105840.948.1@DOMY-PC> <1387125253.1177.2.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1312151750230.41208@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warren Block schreef op 16-12-2013 2:00: > On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Ian Lepore wrote: > >>> If just those 2 features would be implemented, I would be completely >>> into /bin/sh >> >> An alternate viewpoint: I would prefer that /bin/sh remain as lean and >> mean as possible, conforming to posix and especially NOT becoming >> bloated with interactive usability stuff. If you want a user-friendly >> bourne shell and can afford the memory and cycle bloat, use bash. > > An alternate, alternate viewpoint: the code that keeps the command > history is already there, adding code that searches through it for > completion would probably not make it significantly larger. So the > cost is small. > > If people want to use it as their main shell, that's fine. Personally, > I would just like it to make things easier and faster when only sh is > available. The command history was a good step in that direction. There are proberly al lot of features that would come with low cost on there own, but it all adds up. I personaly give preference to tcsh and only use sh for shell programming.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52AE5AC5.9050206>