>On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, at 8:37 AM, Stan Marsh wrote: >> Actually, I am not too fond of the habit of having builtins (particularly >> those supplied as part of the distribution) with the same name as well-known >> Unix commands. > >It allows for potential drop-in replacement if the external commands >are unavailable or unusable, or for improving performance.
Which is why I'm not fond of it. YMMV, of course. I.e., yes, I get the theoretical reasons, but it generates confusion for the user and the purpose of the example builtins is more for instruction than for performance. And, yes, I find the confusion over whether or not they are compiled (and if compiled, whether or not they are installed on a "make install") and also the confusion over why some are and some aren't (I hope it is clear to what I am referring here - I don't care to dot the i's and cross the t's) - all very disconcerting. It seems to me they should all be compiled and installed - all the time. Of course, you still have to "enable" them in your script or shell in order to actually use them. ================================================================================= Please do not send me replies to my posts on the list. I always read the replies via the web archive, so CC'ing to me is unnecessary. Note that they always end up in my Spam file anyway, so it is annoying to have to periodically clean that out.
