Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts inincluded.a]

[Robert Boehne]

Tom,

Are you volunteering to convert the shell functions in CVS Libtool
into non-shell-function code?  I would like to see this discussion
go in a different direction.  I would like to see a list of the
platforms known to NOT have shell functions in their Bourne shells.
My point is that there are systems out there that Libtool does
not support currently, even before it had a shell function in it.
So we're not trying to write code that runs on every computer
that ever existed, so there is a trade off between portability
and maintainability, and a line to draw.  I don't think it is
reasonable for any of us to decide where that line is if we
don't know who it might effect.
Digital Eq.'s Ultrix is the only one I'm aware of, are there any more?

Robert


Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>        > I don't see the urgency to move to shell functions, but I do
>        > see how they can simplify our lives.
> 
> 
> Uh... "if not now, when"?
> 
> Seriously, there's _always_ commercial incentive to do a half assed
> job and the _real_ ego competition is to reject that incentive and do
> a good job anyway.
> 
> Ties are nooses, in a pinch.
> 
> -t
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libtool-patches mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool-patches