3 ms·
Yes, I'm suggesting that busybox can be kept the same, and the parsing can happen in the shell. I get a lot of comments like yours about Python, but they aren'
by chubot 7y ago
Yes, I'm suggesting that busybox can be kept the same, and the parsing can happen in the shell.
I get a lot of comments like yours about Python, but they aren't accurate. This FAQ only helps sometimes, but in case it does:
http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/03/04.html#faq http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/03/04.html#faq
tl;dr You're mistaken about Unicode; forking in open source is sometimes a feature, not a bug.
Also: http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/06/17.html#toc_1 http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/06/17.html#toc_1
- big_chungus 7y ago> busybox can be kept the same, and the parsing can happen in the shell. Busybox includes a shell, ash. Thanks for linking the FAQ; that clears a lot of things up. I can see how the incredible opinionated of python 3 on the whole unicode mess might be an issue. You're maintaining what you need (the big concern) and have clearly done your homework. Clearly you're pretty invested in it, which makes the project look much more interesting. I will be so happy if some one finally gets shell scripting right.