I submitted my bc because someone thought I should. I am sorry for
taking your time.
GH

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:44:08 -0600
> Gavin Howard <gavin.d.how...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Gavin,
>
>> I am not so good with Makefiles, so I can see your point on that.
>
> it's not too drastic, but it makes sense to investigate that a bit.
>
>> As far as dc, technically dc is not a standard, so if you
>> standards-conformant behavior, you need to write a bc that can operate
>> without dc. However, I will also be implementing dc in the same repo
>> someday. The question is which dc to implement.
>
> This is not true. What is true is that dc was removed from the list of
> mandatory utilities in Posix 2008. It is still standardized.
> The reason why it was removed is because it can be implemented with bc,
> but the other way around is entirely possible and historical practice.
>
>> About GNU extensions: this was originally implemented for toybox
>> (http://landley.net/toybox/), and the maintainer specifically asked
>> that my bc be able to run
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/time/timeconst.bc
>> which has basically every GNU extension. Thus, my bc will probably not
>> fit the suckless philosophy because the GNU extensions need to stay.
>> Thanks, though.
>
> Toybox is a one-man operation and it shows in the code. I'd rather
> recommend busybox to anyone, and I hate busybox!
> You as a developer need to decide how you want to write your code. It's
> a mistery to me why you presented it here when you are not planning to
> even remove some of the insane GNU-extensions.
>
> With best regards
>
> Laslo
>
> --
> Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de>
>

Reply via email to