On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Stuart Longland <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/13/10 03:09, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> ash seems to be buggy (enters into a trap despite it being cleared). >> >> Don't we all know that? Dash is also buggy, bash too, and hush is not >> ready yet :( >> >> No criticism here. I really _do_ appreciate your work. IMO, there's no >> "right" or "wrong". There's only "frustration", "insufficient" and >> "usable". > > This is what I call a trap for young players. In a few scripts, I've > set it up to trap ^C... then found that later when I wanted to disable > that trap, it wouldn't unless I executed a subshell. I coded around it > assuming I was Doing It Wrong. > > I take it 'hush' is a future successor to 'ash'?
hush is the only bbox shell which can be compiled for NOMMU machines. I don't have plans to declare hush to be "the main bbox shell". Maybe it will happen in some distant future, but not this or next year. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
