On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:01:02AM -0600, Gavin Howard wrote:
> Otto,
>
> > I think it is interesting. As for the incompatibilites, my memory says
> > I followed the original dc and bc when deciding on those (GNU chose to
> > differs in these cases). Bit it has been 18 years since I wrote the
> > current versions, so I might misrememeber.
>
> I think that makes sense to me. Unfortunately, when I was building my
> dc, I couldn't find any mention in the OpenBSD man pages, which I used
> to ensure as much compatibility as I could, that arrays and registers
> were not separate. Well, there was one (the `;` command mentions
> registers, but the `:` command does not, so I thought that was a typo).
>
> Regarding the 0 having length 0 or 1, that was a decision I agonized
> over. My dad, who is a mathematician, said that it could go either way.
> Unfortunately for me, if this is a showstopper incompatibility (and it
> might be based on how the test suite uses `length()` and `Z`), I do
> think I would keep it as it is and accept that OpenBSD will not want my
> bc(1) and dc(1).
It looks like GNU dc and bc do not agree:
$ dc -V
dc (GNU bc 1.06) 1.3
Copyright 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There
is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
to the extent permitted by law.
iMac:~ otto$ dc
0Zp
0
and
$ bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
length(0)
1
I confirmed the original dc by Morris and Cherry indeed print 0 for
the above test case.
-Otto
>
> > As for moving to your version, I have no opinion yet. I have some
> > attachment to the current code, but not so strong that I am opposing
> > replacement upfront. OTOH the current implementaion is almost
> > maintainance free for many years already. So I dunno.
>
> You have a right to have attachment to it; I have attachment to mine!
>
> In fact, I was pleasantly surprised at how clean and readable your code
> was. I usually struggle to read code written by others, but I could
> easily read yours.
>
> On that note, since last night, I thought of more disadvantages of
> moving to my bc and dc, which I feel I must mention.
>
> More disadvantages:
>
> * The current dc(1) and bc(1) are from a known member of the OpenBSD
> community with many contributions. I am an unknown quantity.
> * The current dc(1) and bc(1) do not have ugly portability code that
> OpenBSD probably doesn't care about.
> * The current dc(1) and bc(1) do not have ugly code to support build
> options that OpenBSD does not care about.
> * The binary size of the OpenBSD dc(1) and bc(1) combined are 78% the
> size of mine combined (on amd64). The size of OpenBSD combined is
> 145440, and the size of mine combined are 185706.
> * The current dc(1) and bc(1) have much less source code and have been
> nearly maintenance-free for many years. Mine were started in 2018 and
> do not have as long of a track record for being low maintenance.
>
> > I'll take a look at your code soon and maybe other devs have opinions.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Gavin Howard
>
