Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031229152216.03bb6430@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: 
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:34:06 -0500
To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach), Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
In-Reply-To: <200312292019.hBTKJaqd017550@guild.plethora.net>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:23 EST." <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229150250 DOT 03bb6d28 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <200312292019 DOT hBTKJaqd017550 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 03:19 PM 12/29/2003, Peter Seebach you wrote:
>In message <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229150250 DOT 03bb6d28 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1>, Larry Hall writes:
>>OK, sounds to me like you've convinced yourself that ash should contain 
>>getopts.  Does that mean that you no longer have a need to keep this thread 
>>going?  I'm not sure I see the discussion providing any useful benefit beyond
>>you becoming more comfortable with your original position.  If I'm wrong,
>>please show us where you're headed.  If not and your main goal was to just 
>>point out that ash doesn't have getopts, then let's end the thread.  There's 
>>little point to covering the same ground on this topic again. 
>
>The goal here is that I would like Cygwin to be the best environment it could
>be, since I use it, and I sometimes want to recommend such an environment to
>people, and I dislike having to say "it's very much like Unix, except that
>standard POSIX shell scripts that have worked on every Unix system anywhere
>since the late 80's won't run on it".
>
>In short, I think this mistake should be recognized as just that - a mistaken
>devotion to the Little Tin God - and corrected.  Then Cygwin will be one
>obvious step closer to POSIX compliance, and there will no longer be periodic
>repititions of the question "why doesn't my POSIX-compliant shell script
>work with this /bin/sh", followed quickly by the question "why did someone
>put special effort into breaking it".
>
>This has already made its way into a book as an example of false efficiency.


I see.  So how does this thread differ from previous ones on this subject?
As far as I can see, you simply want to state your case but not contribute 
anything in return.  We've had threads like that.  If you *really* want
to see a change here, you have to put some effort into it.  That means 
looking at the issue objectively, running some tests, and if those tests
bear out, sharing them with the list along with the patch to enable the 
features you want and that your tests validate.  Of course, you can skip 
all this and just voice your opinion and be done with it.  It's your right.
It won't resolve your issue though.  Well, at least not at this point.  But
if that's the direction you want to go then it makes sense to end this 
thread, since it's just covering the same ground as the previous threads on 
this subject.



--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/