Re: Future [exec] overhaul

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 11:55:51PM +0200, Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
> On 7/2/08, Larry McVoy <lm@...> wrote:
> >
> > Great start!
> >
> > Is there any reason to keep the exec name?  You have no idea how many times
> > I've heard "tcl, the only language where exec doesn't".
> 
> That one is funny, if unfair :)

I thought it was funny the first time.  It gets old quickly.  But those
folks have a point, why pick a name that is well understood to do one
thing and have it do another thing?  Kind of in line with your intuitive
comment below.

> >  What would be
> > wrong with calling it system, like system(3).  We've written a system
> > clone that doesn't use sh but supports much of the shell syntax you
> > describe above.
> 
> I'm open to any name of course. I have a slight bias against [system]
> because, by analogy with libc's system(), its most intuitive
> interpretation would be to use /bin/sh, not emulate it... 

We've been pretty happy with ours even though it doesn't fork /bin/sh.
And the nice thing is it works when there is no /bin/sh (winblows).
--

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08