Probably I'm talking shit here... or maybe this is something you are
considering with sbase already... but I kept thinking about this.
Would it make sense to create a whole shell infrastructure based on
little small commands?
I mean, not just replacing no-brainer builtin things like "echo", etc,
> by doing system() calls to an extremelly minimal shell. Would it make sense?
uh.. I mean, something like a while-cmd like this:
while-cmd 'test whatever' <
On 31/05/2013, Fernando C.V. wrote:
> Would it make sense to create a whole shell infrastructure based on
> little small commands?
>
> I mean, not just replacing no-brainer builtin things like "echo", etc,
> but also things like "if", "while", "for", "set", by doing system()
> calls to an extremel
[2013-05-31 12:05] "Fernando C.V."
> Probably I'm talking shit here... or maybe this is something you are
> considering with sbase already... but I kept thinking about this.
>
> Would it make sense to create a whole shell infrastructure based on
> little small commands?
>
> I mean, not just repl
Greetings.
On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:00:41 +0200 markus schnalke wrote:
> [2013-05-31 12:05] "Fernando C.V."
> > Probably I'm talking shit here... or maybe this is something you are
> > considering with sbase already... but I kept thinking about this.
> >
> > Would it make sense to create a whole
> * tab completion
Does this need to be built in? Would it suck less to have a wrapper that
can do tab completion that we can reuse? Something along the lines of
rlwrap but without readline. Or would it suck less to create/use a
different library to accomplish this?
> * ugly POSIX style
>
Christoph Lohmann dixit:
>* tab completion
Can busybox ash do this? (If so, that’s recent.)
> * Does this really need plugins?
Definitely not; in mksh, tab completion is deterministic: the
first word is expanded as command, all other words as files.
Only downside is that tab completion i
Greetings.
On Fri, 31 May 2013 20:29:53 +0200 Evan Gates wrote:
> > * ugly POSIX style
> > * backwards compatibility?
>
> I think it would be nice to have a simplest possible POSIX compliant sh.
> I'm not well versed in the options that already exist, is there a minimally
> compliant, sm
Greetings.
On Fri, 31 May 2013 20:32:05 +0200 Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Christoph Lohmann dixit:
>
> >* tab completion
>
> Can busybox ash do this? (If so, that’s recent.)
It can do basic tab completion in directories.
> >For now busybox ash is enough for all of this.
>
> I don’t think you sh
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>> P.S. Any recommendations on joining #suckless when connecting to oftc
>> through tor?
>
>Don’t be a terrorist pedophile so don’t use tor. Only feminists,
>pe‐
>dophiles and terrorists use tor.
>
That's pretty offensive, don't you think? There are
Christoph Lohmann dixit:
>Remove this Build.sh crap and add some real Makefile and I will recon‐
>sider using it.
You can let Build.sh generate a Makefile using the -M option,
but that Makefile would then be specific to the system it ran
on (actually “for”, not “on”, considering cross-compiling
Greetings.
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:15:15 +0200 Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>
> >> P.S. Any recommendations on joining #suckless when connecting to oftc
> >> through tor?
> >
> >Don’t be a terrorist pedophile so don’t use tor. Only feminists,
> >pe‐
>
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 09:15:15PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Fighting for the freedom of everyone should be a common hobby of the av???
> erage intellectual.
>
>
> But there are other ways to scramble your IP and connect to OFTC. Just
> don???t let the average idiot know about how t
13 matches
Mail list logo
