From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dashhh
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:50:52 +0100
Message-ID: <201111181150.52823.stefano.lattarini@gmail.com>
References: <4EC53397.2030005@am-anger-1.de> <201111171821.58460.stefano.lattarini@gmail.com> <4EC56973.70504@am-anger-1.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dash-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:36618 "EHLO
	mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751200Ab1KRKvI (ORCPT <rfc822;dash@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:51:08 -0500
Received: by eye27 with SMTP id 27so3104756eye.19
        for <dash@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:51:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EC56973.70504@am-anger-1.de>
Sender: dash-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: dash@vger.kernel.org
To: Heiko Gerstung <heiko@am-anger-1.de>
Cc: dash@vger.kernel.org

Hi Heiko.

On Thursday 17 November 2011, Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> >>
> >> I can understand the reasoning behind the relucatance of the dash crew
> >> to apply any of those changes to the main codebase.
> >> For me it is not so important that dash is fully POSIX compliant
> >>
> > But for many people, this is VERY important!
> I know and I never wanted to question that. That's why I pointed out 
> that for me it is not so important. I need a fast, powerful and 
> ressource-friendly non-interactive shell for my scripts and dash is 
> really kicking ass in this respect.
> 
> >
> > (Still, it seems to me that your proposed changes would leave dash
> > POSIX-compliant, so there's no need to venture into a discussion
> > of the merits of POSIX-compatibility).
>
> OK. Although I always thought that the POSIX standard defines a minimum 
> feature set that should be shared among all shells out there. 
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Being stricly POSIX compliant does not prevent you from offering 
> additions and enhancements
>
> [SNIP]
>
That was exactly what I was trying to say (when I wrote "it seems to
me that your proposed changes would leave dash POSIX-compliant").  So
we agree on this, no worry :-)

Regards,
  Stefano