On 10 July 2011 11:04, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday 09 July 2011 12:11, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 9 July 2011 11:08, Eric Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> could you provide an example ?
>> >>
>> >> re,
>> >> wh
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > With ash :
>> >
>> > # mkdir /tmp/{a,b,c}
>> > # ls /tmp
>> > {a,b,c}
>> >
>> >
>> > With hush :
>> >
>> > # mkdir /tmp/{a,b,c}
>> > # ls /tmp
>> > a b c
>> >
>> >
>> > Brace expansion works in hush but not in ash.
>>
>> It shouldn't work in ash, as Denys said. It's a bashism.
>
> I didn't say it should not, I said it doesn't work.
>
> IOW: there is no policy decision to never ever implement
> brace expansion in ash, it's just not implemented right now.
>
So... do we need a separate ash and hush if ash doesn't need to be
sh-compatible? I don't want to start a flamewar, but I think that
portability is very important, and adding strange extensions means
that people use code that breaks on other platforms, as you well know
from the latest patches to gen_build.sh.
Can we still call it ash if it doesn't behave like ash?
Also, what about scripts that don't expect { to be a special
character, what happens then?
Chris
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
