On Feb 26, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> making it relatively similar to bourne shell wouldn't hurt since that
> is already a known quantity, and will be easier for maintainers to get
> to grips with
In fact, if we could keep it fully compatible with (a subset of)
Bourne s
On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:29:23AM -0500, Ezra Peisach wrote:
>
>
> Ok - I'm game. Do you have any ground rules regarding the syntax of "u"?
Well, the higher level we can make it, the better. On the other hand,
making it relatively similar to bourne shell wouldn't hurt since that
is already a
Ok - I'm game. Do you have any ground rules regarding the syntax of "u"?
For instance, will you support functions, cleanup handlers, and system
builtins? I am assuming basic conditionals, loops, etc.
In looking at the simple compile example, you need to be able to
lock/unlock a file, create s
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:54:58AM -0500, Ezra Peisach wrote:
>
> I too am concerned with performance with libtool. I tried slipping
> libtool into a complicated package and the build time went from 1'20"
> to 2'00". Not the fastest of machines, but
And as more features pile in, it will get
