On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 19 March 2009 00:07:55 Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 16:56, Michal Simek wrote: >> > I look at shell folder and there is msh patch for function support. >> > There is on the top comment that is buggy. What is buggy? >> > >> > Maybe I will have a time to clean it. >> >> hush code is cleaner (IMO), and it even has tiny rudiment >> of function handling (so far commented out). >> >> The easiest way is to remember function body verbatim >> as a string, and parse + execute it at the call site. >> This is easy because similar code already exists - >> the code which handles `cmd param param` thing. >> >> Harder part would be to implement "remember function body >> verbatim as a string", you need to parse it >> in order to find which one of "}" tokens >> is an end of function. This code also exists, >> it is needed to handle { cmd; cmd; } thing, >> but it does not save the source string, it produces >> a parsed tree. You can try remembering that tree instead, >> but there was a reason why this may not work >> (I forgot what exastly). Also, the tree will >> for sure be _bigger_ than source string. > > what's the nommu status of hush ? nommu is the only reason msh lives on. > -mike
hush is working on NOMMU. NOMMU situation is very simple: the only applet which is completely off-limits for NOMMU is ash. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
