Re: [dev] suckless shell prompt?

From: Alexander Huemer <alexander.huemer_AT_xx.vu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:11:09 +0100

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 02:27:14PM -0500, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-11-25 14:16:48 +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
> > Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea!
>
> In my opinion others already got close enough for us not to worry (rc,
> mksh, undoubtedly others). We had some discussion about whether we would
> have a shell included with sbase, but I think the consensus (or at
> least, what David said) was that we weren't going to use one in the end.

I second that. In my opinion it is worth to consider to think about a
suckless shell, but that is definitely a beast which does not belong in
sbase but would need to be a project on its own.

> My only concern is that there probably has to be some balance between
> POSuX and having a usable environment, which is a pretty delicate
> balance to strike (see: crazy ass bash nonsense where `readonly' and
> `declare -r' don't have the same scoping).
>
> Although maybe we don't have to care about POSIX any more as long as
> we're not /bin/sh, who knows. I know a few people who are happily using
> fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily
> care about POSIX semantics in their shell.

Do these people really use fish as /bin/sh or do they use it as their
interactive shell? The former is _very_ scary, the latter is just a
matter of taste.

My personal opinion is that as /bin/sh only something POSIX compliant
makes sense, an interactive shell can be a bit more adventurous.

Kind regards,
-Alex
Received on Mon Nov 25 2013 - 21:11:09 CET