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

[Charles Wilson]

address@hidden wrote:

> >  Let
> > them install BASH and get out of our way.  Both of them.
>
> Bash uses configure.


And so does ash :-( which was my first thought for working around this 
problem.  On the other hand, is it so terrible to ask that those who 
wish to continue using systems with 20-year-old shells build bash/ash on 
a modern system using a cross-compiler?

One massive painful thing -- for "both" of those users, as Bruce puts it 
-- and then they have a modern shell on their ancient machine, and then 
these "two" users will be able to continue using modern autoconf/libtool 
tools.  (assuming "modern" versions start using shell functions).

As far as "who did it first" -- does it really matter?  This isn't about 
finger pointing, it's about solving problems.  Right now, one of the 
problems is the gigantic size and slow runtime of configure.  Both 
problems will be helped to a certain degree (unknown how much) by the 
use of shell functions.  And some problems -- like the one addressed by 
win32_libid -- can be solved (cleanly) by shell functions, or very badly 
by the use of additional shell scripts and/or HERE documents.  Blech.

--Chuck