On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:44:08 -0600
Gavin Howard <gavin.d.howard_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gavin,
> I am not so good with Makefiles, so I can see your point on that.
it's not too drastic, but it makes sense to investigate that a bit.
> As far as dc, technically dc is not a standard, so if you
> standards-conformant behavior, you need to write a bc that can operate
> without dc. However, I will also be implementing dc in the same repo
> someday. The question is which dc to implement.
This is not true. What is true is that dc was removed from the list of
mandatory utilities in Posix 2008. It is still standardized.
The reason why it was removed is because it can be implemented with bc,
but the other way around is entirely possible and historical practice.
> About GNU extensions: this was originally implemented for toybox
> (http://landley.net/toybox/), and the maintainer specifically asked
> that my bc be able to run
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/time/timeconst.bc
> which has basically every GNU extension. Thus, my bc will probably not
> fit the suckless philosophy because the GNU extensions need to stay.
> Thanks, though.
Toybox is a one-man operation and it shows in the code. I'd rather
recommend busybox to anyone, and I hate busybox!
You as a developer need to decide how you want to write your code. It's
a mistery to me why you presented it here when you are not planning to
even remove some of the insane GNU-extensions.
With best regards
Laslo
--
Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Tue Mar 13 2018 - 20:56:33 CET