On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 02:27:14PM -0500, Chris Down wrote: > On 2013-11-25 14:16:48 +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote: > > Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea! > > In my opinion others already got close enough for us not to worry (rc, > mksh, undoubtedly others). We had some discussion about whether we would > have a shell included with sbase, but I think the consensus (or at > least, what David said) was that we weren't going to use one in the end.
I second that. In my opinion it is worth to consider to think about a suckless shell, but that is definitely a beast which does not belong in sbase but would need to be a project on its own. > My only concern is that there probably has to be some balance between > POSuX and having a usable environment, which is a pretty delicate > balance to strike (see: crazy ass bash nonsense where `readonly' and > `declare -r' don't have the same scoping). > > Although maybe we don't have to care about POSIX any more as long as > we're not /bin/sh, who knows. I know a few people who are happily using > fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily > care about POSIX semantics in their shell. Do these people really use fish as /bin/sh or do they use it as their interactive shell? The former is _very_ scary, the latter is just a matter of taste. My personal opinion is that as /bin/sh only something POSIX compliant makes sense, an interactive shell can be a bit more adventurous. Kind regards, -Alex
