Hi Drake, Drake Wilson wrote:
> Depending on how it's implemented, this can also cause a sort of > inconsistency fault line. [...] > Inserting, say, a > debugging echo before the actual command is virtually guaranteed to > not exec the final command directly. How do you like the ksh93 behavior? Actually, let me take that back. If you actually want a guarantee that future versions of dash will have or lack this feature, you can work with upstream[1] or the Austin common standards revision group[2]. Hints: . Since ksh93 (like ksh88, iirc) and bash already support this optimization and, well, it's been good for them, POSIX is not likely to change to forbid it. . Goals for dash include code size, speed, POSIX conformance, simplicity, compatibility. Patches with clear justification are much better received than arguments without patches (though bug reports are always appreciated). Needless to say, a change in behavior is not going to happen in time for squeeze regardless. Thanks for your interest, Jonathan [1] [email protected] [2] http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
