Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Marc Espie:
>
> > I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way
> > sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard
> > shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions.
>
> I think that
Marc Espie:
> I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way
> sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard
> shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions.
I think that is a terrible idea. Historically the
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 04:33:08PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Jason McIntyre:
>
> > - i'm ok with the getopt.1 and ksh.1 parts
> > - i'm not ok with the addition to sh.1
> >
> > no one has really given a good reason why they think it should go into
> > sh.1. i've given a few why i
Jason McIntyre:
> - i'm ok with the getopt.1 and ksh.1 parts
> - i'm not ok with the addition to sh.1
>
> no one has really given a good reason why they think it should go into
> sh.1. i've given a few why i think it should not.
My understanding is that sh.1 is a subset of ksh.1, describing the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:42:12PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > my argument boils down to: sh(1) is small and has no examples. adding
> > them changes the (deliberate) nature of the page. ksh(1) is what you
> > read when you can;t
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Marc Espie:
>
> > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
>
> Let's start the discussion with this instead.
>
> This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place,
> and uses the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Marc Espie:
>
> > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
>
> Let's start the discussion with this instead.
>
> This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place,
> and uses the
Marc Espie:
> Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
Let's start the discussion with this instead.
This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place,
and uses the same snippet in sh.1 and ksh.1.
Index: bin/ksh/ksh.1
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> my argument boils down to: sh(1) is small and has no examples. adding
> them changes the (deliberate) nature of the page. ksh(1) is what you
> read when you can;t get to sleep.
>
> why is it wrong to add your example to ksh(1)? why
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:07:55PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > > Until a patch from naddy, I
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:07:55PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
> > >
> > > Unless I made some
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
> >
> > Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1)
> > manpage.
> >
> >
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
>
> Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1)
> manpage.
>
> It's likely some stronger wording might be adequate, I suspect some
> of the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:14:26PM BST, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:03:00PM +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > You and me both ;^)
> >
> > Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is
> > in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:03:00PM +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> You and me both ;^)
>
> Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is
> in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in there, but a
> utility[0].
Nope, it is a shell built-in... the "wording" of
Hi Mark,
You and me both ;^)
Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is
in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in there, but a
utility[0].
[0] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getopts.html
Cheers,
Raf
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at
Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1)
Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1)
manpage.
It's likely some stronger wording might be adequate, I suspect some
of the BUGS section in getopt(1) does not apply to the sh(1) built-in.
Index:
17 matches
Mail list logo