On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 19:42 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > On 11/4/22 12:22 PM, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote: > > > what on yours i ask , o i see now , 4.2 .. > > i quote right in ${ // - to me , preserved quotes are • an invalid youth > > bug to be replaced with better by bash.c changes > > which it seemfully did > > The question is, as always, tradeoffs. Do you fix bugs or not? Do you make > the behavior more consistent across operations, even if incompatibilities > (as above) result? Do you tighten up behavior where previous versions were > too permissive, even if people will have to change their code as a result, > or not? Do you introduce new features, or not? Do you make things opt-in, > or opt-out? The answers are not always the same. >
i d ask me one other .. asking where 'the specific' s place is , to code it there , where it belongs Greg, for example, puts a lot of value in being able to use the same code > from bash-4.2, which was released in 2010, through the current version. > That's the tradeoff he's willing to make when answering these questions. > im a poor invalid-rent in swiss assed , tech++ privateer to me only newest versions count ( preferabily containing feature addments ) to me as pro bash coder ( i sitted and learned and teachen further by interactive computer chats ( mostly irc ) ) for years .. to me , knowing all the bugs bash has over some time , makes me have big anti reasons to use old bashes i mean its one to support old but , why does that old exist redhat 5 6 7 they cant update ? or use extra , old softwre , to exploit flaws in sw .. to support such .. no me man , not for me i mean i got clauses here and there , in my coding freelance ing , one is 'pref. updated debian to run' - that is debian all public short tree s , not just useless 'stable' - and i d put it on as sometimes i try to say , .. stuff is incomplete , and if fixes dont come , just as no good as always it is just as ppl support 4.2 i 'only newest' greg did great examples btw This was the entire rationale for the compatibility mode in the first > place: if you want things as they were before, set the appropriate > compatibility variable. The same is true of features controlled by shell > options. Backwards compatibility is important, and I put a lot of effort into it. > But I nudge things forward when I think it's warranted. As you've seen, > there's always spirited disagreement. > it s a vital work for you , ye i can just say , changing quotes to be interpreted is imo vital too :p i mean done correctly better now than before when , you have smth , like sh or bash , or non computer stuff it takes , its known-to-be , material-beeing which will in time need changes to be done to it hm hm , greets , x -- > ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer > ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates > Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/ > >