Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:46:18 -0500 From: Matthew Story <matthewstory@gmail.com> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: intent of tab-completion in /bin/sh in 9.0 Message-ID: <CAB%2B9ogewjp4r8oyhAF5M9ofdvQR3KrJQaDOZKuZoVTu%2Br-1jWg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120118221630.GA97471@stack.nl> References: <CAB%2B9ogffj6XOTrJrZACVUdzoJTnBf6s03up3N%2BpSC4_71V2=Jg@mail.gmail.com> <20120118221630.GA97471@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> wrote: > [...snip] > > On the contrary, our /bin/sh is minimalistic compared to many other > shells used in that role, like bash, pdksh, mksh and ksh93. It (the 9.0 > version) has only slightly more features than dash or NetBSD's sh, and > dash has instead some other features. > I prefer FreeBSD sh over these others for its minimalism (although I do like dash as well), particularly when not being used interactively. > [...snip] > > POSIX itself has gradually adopted ksh features, so seeing more of them > in future is not unlikely. Most of the new language features in 9.0 are > either from POSIX.1-2008 or on the roadmap for a new version of POSIX > (in collaboration with other shell authors). Tab completion is a welcome addition, I was unaware that this had been (or is slated to be) added to the POSIX specification. This makes far more sense than my proposed explanations. Thanks for the clarification. > Some plans for sh in 10.0 are in this mailing list post: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-December/011976.html Let me know what (if anything) I can do anything to help with the continued development of sh, cheers. > > > -- > Jilles Tjoelker > -- regards, matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAB%2B9ogewjp4r8oyhAF5M9ofdvQR3KrJQaDOZKuZoVTu%2Br-1jWg>