From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:42:33 +0200
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Message-ID: <20010629174233.A659@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIOEONCEAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> <20010629092540 DOT B223 AT lauras DOT lt> <8296-Fri29Jun2001115756+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010629125900 DOT A314 AT lauras DOT lt> <2947-Fri29Jun2001174219+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2947-Fri29Jun2001174219+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> > There are already things like POSIXLY_CORRECT, and at least I didn't
> > hear complaints about it.
> 
> Probably because no one uses it ;-)

Well, probably.

> You forget the interactive user: users' expectations are also
> important, because Bash is used as an interactive shell as well as a
> batch shell.

Well, but I, interactive & batch user, am flooding this list just
because of my expectations how bash should work. IMHO average user
expects that configure scripts work with bash, doesn't he?

Laurynas