Clint Hepner wrote:
On Aug 19, 2018, at 10:25 AM, konsolebox wrote:
Hi Chet,
The sleep command is often used in loops and using the external sleep
is expensive.
Expensive is relative, as the time spent actually sleeping probably dwarfs the
startup time. If not, you probably want
wouldn't it be less confusing if the proposed built-in sleep function were
given a new name instead of overloading "sleep"?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:34 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:23 PM Ilkka Virta wrote:
> >
> > On 21.8. 02:35, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > > I don't think
On 21.8. 14:34, konsolebox wrote:
Also it's basically
people's fault for not reading documentation. One should be aware
enough if they enable the builtin.
Yes, if it's not enabled by default.
--
Ilkka Virta / itvi...@iki.fi
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:23 PM Ilkka Virta wrote:
>
> On 21.8. 02:35, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > I don't think there's a problem with a `syntax conflict' as long as any
> > builtin sleep accepts a superset of the POSIX options for sleep(1).
>
> The sleep in GNU coreutils accepts suffixes indicating
On 21.8. 02:35, Chet Ramey wrote:
I don't think there's a problem with a `syntax conflict' as long as any
builtin sleep accepts a superset of the POSIX options for sleep(1).
The sleep in GNU coreutils accepts suffixes indicating minutes, hours
and days (e.g. sleep 1.5m or sleep 1m 30s for
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 8/19/18 10:27 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>
> >> This proposal simply requests an intuitively equivalent simple
> >> assignment syntax for associative arrays just like a='...' and
> >> a=(...), with same behavior for scoping.
> >>
> >> Maybe we
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:35 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> I'm going to wait until after bash-5.0 is released before considering
> this. In the meantime, there is the loadable version, which is now built
> and installed by default when you run `make install'.
I see, thanks. That's good enough for now.
