From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA04028 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 06:48:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA09835; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608142045.QAA00597@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Final 3.0.0 test release In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:11:24 PDT." <960814111125.ZM12797@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:45:31 -0400 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"tKEBf.0.cP2.4kZ4o"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1977 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > } I've put together the final 3.0.0 release but before I release it I'd like > } some other people to try it. > > I still object to having a configure test for the default behavior of > BSD_ECHO when run as "sh". This should NOT be something that varies > from one installation to the next! > > For one thing, people who already have an older version of zsh linked > to sh will end up with the same (possibly wrong) behavior that they had > before. > > For another, it breaks the whole notion of being able to rely on the > consistent behavior of the shell following "emulate -R ...". I completely agree... The options for zsh when called as sh, should not depend on your current configuration. It is especially bad for us sysadmins who work on heterogenous environments.... I don't want zsh working one way on one machine, and another way on another machine. One of the reasons people install third party shells is to get consistency across their various platforms. rc