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 QAA04552 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:40:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA03720; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 02:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 02:37:55 -0400 (EDT) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Announcement draft References: <199607312111.XAA25395@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.74) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: bas@astro.uva.nl (Bas V. de Bakker) Date: 01 Aug 1996 08:36:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi's message of Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:11:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.37/Emacs 19.31 Resent-Message-ID: <"jXTxY2.0.2w.3350o"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1857 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Zoltan Hidvegi writes: > More than a thousand bugs have been fixed since the release of > zsh-2.5.0 This makes 2.5.0 sound quite unusable, which it wasn't. Are you also counting the bugs introduced after 2.5.0? > Additionally zsh is probably one of the most portable program > available for Unix. It uses GNU autoconf and it builds out of the > box on most systems. Considering the amount of system calls a shell uses, it is surely very portable. But I tend to doubt whether this is true when compared to all kinds of programs that do not need to depend on system specific features. > /bin/sh can be safely linked to zsh. This sounded too good to be true, so I just tested this on the perl Configure script and it failed, sorry. (To be slightly more precise: when typing '& -d' at a prompt to make it use the defaults zsh gives me a parse error, while /bin/sh (POSIX, not traditional Bourne) has no problems. This on HPUX 10.10.) Bas.