4 ms·
I'm not talking about implementation, but rather designing a clear and consistent syntax. It sounds like your intent is to hew pretty closely to existing shells
by hyperpape 10y ago
I'm not talking about implementation, but rather designing a clear and consistent syntax. It sounds like your intent is to hew pretty closely to existing shells, in which case you're probably doing more detail work.
- chubot 10y agoThe strategy is to break compatibility with bash but provide an upgrade path, as mentioned here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13478291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13478291 It is a design issue to combine command and expression syntax (unquoted and vs. quoted literals). But I think I've figured it out ... we'll see in a few months! The blog will have updates on these kinds of issues.
- hyperpape 10y agoBut are you maintaining POSIX compatibility? I thought I'd read that somewhere on your blog, but I might misremember.
- chubot 10y agoYes, the osh language is basically bash, which is very compatible superset of POSIX sh. The oil language is a totally different language, but you will be able to upgrade to it automatically. Once you upgrade it's of course not POSIX compatible anymore :)