On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:51 PM Kerin Millar <k...@plushkava.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'll put it in a little more detail, though no less plainly. I find the
> terminology of "libraries" and "modules" to be specious in the context of a
> language that has no support for namespaces, awkward scoping rules, a
> problematic implementation of name references, and so on. These
> foundational defects are hardly going to be addressed by a marginally more
> flexible source builtin. Indeed, it is unclear that they can be - or ever
> will be - addressed. Presently, bash is what it is: a messy, slow, useful
> implementation of the Shell Command Language with an increasing number of
> accoutrements, some of which are fine and others of which are less so (and
> virtually impossible to get rid of). As curmudgeonly as it may be to gripe
> over variable and option names, this is why the import of library, as a
> word, does not rest at all well in these quarters. That aside, I do not
> find the premise of the patch series to be a convincing one but would have
> little else to say about its prospective inclusion, provided that the
> behaviour of the posix mode were to be left unchanged in all respects.
>
> --
> Kerin Millar
>
>
Thanx @Kerin, I got an intuitive reluctance with the patch series, but
could not formalize it that way, that is exactly it (specially the nameref
to me :-))
That brings up some questioning about the bash dev workflow. I personally
only monitor bash-bug (not the others bash-*), specially to be aware of new
incoming patches.
Generally, the few patch that shows up here are patches that fix a specific
standing bug, or on some occasion, the declaration of a bug along with a
patch to fix it, they are generally reply with 'thanx for the report and
patch!'
I rarely see patches about "Hey guys I got this great idea what do you
think", so I wonder for this kind of request does git{lab,hub,whatever} be
more appropriate? or may be I should say convenient, a public git project
(clone) generally have all the infrastructure for discussions, enhancement
and fix.
The bash code owner can then pull the great idea when the demand for it
start roaring?
Just questioning, I really have no idea what is the bash dev team way of
receiving enhancement request.
