On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 02:01:43AM -0800, Peter Memishian wrote: > > Why so many complains for one simple bug? > > It is not one simple bug, it is the latest in a sequence of bugs related > [...] > > > Maybe wrong decision, maybe good (less code duplicity). > > There are lots of ways to share code. FWIW, in the case of sleep, there > wasn't a whole lot to share -- the venerable old binary was all of 94 > lines of source code, including comments. Sure, it doesn't have all sorts > of bells and whistles, but it also just worked and got out of your way, > which is what a simple, core utility should do. > > To be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of sharing code -- far from it. > I am also not opposed to the idea of using the AST codebase to subsume > grotty commands that are complex or have conformance/maintenance issues. > However, sleep was simple and harmless, and last required a change in > 1996, hence my opposition.
I tend to agree, but the pay-off from switching to ksh93/AST built-ins in other cases may well make this pain worthwhile. sleep(1) was a simple program, a canary in the mine of the core utils modernization effort, and now we know that there are some pitfalls and bugs that must be addressed in the process. If that is manageable and the pay-off worthwhile, then we should keep at it, else we should turn back. That said, I don't have the insights to opine as to which course to follow. Nico --
