[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Actually, the problem is indeed in policy.  In its resolution of
> #539158 the TC decided unanimously (but unfortunately slightly
> implicitly) that printf ought to be provided by our /bin/sh.


> As the maintainer of a minority shell, Thorsten has the most interest
> in regularising this.  Perhaps Thorsten would like to propose a
> suitable policy wording (with a view to changing posh to match).

I’d rather prefer to see this resolved by getting #428189 fixed.

Michael, can you please comment on that bug, as coreutils maintainer?

> Obviously that wording ought to be consistent with the TC's decision
> in #539158 - ie, it should specify printf as a builtin.

Fixing #428189 would avoid pulling printf into the list of builtins
and not violate the #539158 decision.

Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"

Reply to: