On Tuesday 10 November 2009 14:43:07 Cathey, Jim wrote: > >It seems to me that it would be bad design to have such an intent. > >IOW, one app is changing the *parent shell* in order to pass a > >non-standard state on to the next app. > > Things like stty(1) do this all the time. Seems to me that > it is up to any given program (such as a shell) to force I/O > mode bits into any states that are required for it to work > correctly, and they generally do this while leaving the rest > of the bits alone (inherited). Not sure how this (ancient) > practice bears on the current problem.
while i think you meant for this to say the current behavior is correct, it comes across as being vague. 'required for it to work correctly' is open to interpretation -- correct behavior for johns certainly doesnt line up with correct behavior for others. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
