Sure, it's 10 times bigger, but it actually implements arbitrary-precision math, implements all of the dc commands except 1, and (this is probably the biggest thing) implements dc strings properly, including being able to *execute* them, conditionally and unconditionally.
I personally feel like it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. That said, if you want my code out of busybox, just let me know. That's your prerogative, and I would be wrong to be upset. Gavin Howard On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, 01:12 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com wrote: > On 6 December 2018 22:38:45 CET, Gavin Howard <gavin.d.how...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:30 PM Michael Conrad <mcon...@intellitree.com> > >wrote: > >> > >> On 12/6/2018 11:48 AM, Gavin Howard wrote: > >> > >> > you are going to have to make the bc not give good error messages > >and/or not check for errors as thoroughly (a massive chunk of the > >parser, which is the largest portion, is dedicated to error checking), > >reduce the quality of the code, reduce the performance of the math > >(though this would not remove much), or all of them combined. > >> > >> Just FYI, these are typical things people do for busybox applets ;-) > >> > >> I'm not a bc user, so I don't care either way; having the applet > >seems better than not having it, and you seem to have thoroughly > >completed a difficult project. …but I do think maybe you missed the > >spirit of Busybox code. > > > >Fair enough, mostly, because I know the point of busybox, actually. I > > Don't get me wrong, but given your dc was 10 (!) times the size of our > existing implementation I would be surprised if the bc written in the same > style was as small as it should be. > > thanks, >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox