Peter Memishian wrote:
> > i'm afraid i might be damming myself by making this suggestion,
> > but would using a pre-compiled ksh script solve this problem?
>
> I'm still puzzled by the whole need to replace `sleep' with a built-in.
> What was wrong with `sleep' as a C program? The purpose in life of sleep
> is to do nothing for a specified period of time; why does the performance
> of it matter?
>
> >From where I sit, it seems this transition has already cost us too much.
> Maybe it's time to re-evaluate.
>
>
I think one of the points was, surprisingly, that there were additional
features in ksh93's sleep. (Fractional sleeps, e.g. sleep for 500 msec
instead of 1 sec granularity.)
If ksh93 already has the code, and *if* we accept that it is now
entrenched into ON (such that one can't have a properly functioning ON
without it) as a critical piece, then reducing duplicated code fragments
*elsewhere* might be worthwhile in itself.
(I've already complained about a number of things -- such as increased
start up times of shell utilities -- I don't like about the ksh93 but
was either ignored or overruled. Seems a bit late to restart the whole
ksh93 debate at this juncture...)
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
