From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3215 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 11:23:00 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 11:23:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 21347 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 11:22:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5257 Received: (qmail 21334 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 11:22:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:30:43 +0200 Organization: Pleyades To: okiddle@yahoo.co.uk, raul@pleyades.net Subject: Re: read -s Cc: zsh-users@sunsite.dk Message-ID: <3D5CE263.mailMZ11Q4LG@viadomus.com> References: <1029335491.21222.75.camel@carrot> <3D5B7B8C.mail12L17CVMQ@viadomus.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: nail 9.31 6/18/02 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: DervishD Reply-To: DervishD Sender: DervishD X-Mailer: DervishD TWiSTiNG Mailer Hi Oliver (Kiddle) :)) >> IMHO the stty solution is cleaner and more portable. BASH is >> bloated with things like those, please don't imitate ;)) >Well Peter has already posted a patch for it on -workers though he >hasn't committed it to CVS. The patch isn't big enough to upset me as >being bloat but I can see your point. Really, the patch is very small, and moreover Z sh is very well coded (so it will difficult to bloat ;))))). Really, Zsh is not bloated at all (IMHO), and the modular approach makes even more difficult to bloat. For example, it has an ftp client, and if forced it would be bloat (an ftp client on a shell...), but just making it a module solves the problem. A very good job, indeed :) >> For example, bash has a non-POSIX, non-SuSv3 compliant >> implementation of 'printf' builtin >Out of interest, in what way is bash's printf non-compliant? The 'printf' builtin of BASH gives an error if you print, for example, '--'. It interprets it as an option given... SuSv3 says that printf must print whatever you pass as parameter. >Also, zsh 4.0.x does not have a printf builtin. The printf in the >4.1 branch is compliant to my knowledge but adds a good few features >which go beyond the standards. But won't choke on 'printf --' ;)) And it's true, zsh 4.0.x doesn't have a printf, sorry. Bad example chosen here O:)) It was /bin/printf that was invoked, from sh-utils (that, BTW, aren't compliant. It won't print '--help', for example. Raśl