On Friday 14 May 2010 15:57:34 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010, Peter Tyser wrote: > > I also personally prefer explicitly specifying a variable for 'read' > > instead of using the "magical" REPLY variable. > > Yes. Horrid obfuscation.
By the way, if you were making the argument "this should work under busybox's own shells", I'd be all for it. You could even make a standards argment around SUSv4. But making the argument "this should comply with Ubuntu's design mistakes", such as replacing the gcc binary with a perl wrapper (yes really, check Ubuntu 8.10)... That's not a compelling argument for an embedded toolset. > Cheers, Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
