Re: read -s

[DervishD <raul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Hi Oliver (Kiddle) :))

>>     IMHO the stty solution is cleaner and more portable. BASH is
>> bloated with things like those, please don't imitate ;))
>Well Peter has already posted a patch for it on -workers though he
>hasn't committed it to CVS. The patch isn't big enough to upset me as
>being bloat but I can see your point.

    Really, the patch is very small, and moreover Z sh is very well
coded (so it will difficult to bloat ;))))). Really, Zsh is not
bloated at all (IMHO), and the modular approach makes even more
difficult to bloat. For example, it has an ftp client, and if forced
it would be bloat (an ftp client on a shell...), but just making it a
module solves the problem. A very good job, indeed :)

>>     For example, bash has a non-POSIX, non-SuSv3 compliant
>> implementation of 'printf' builtin
>Out of interest, in what way is bash's printf non-compliant?

    The 'printf' builtin of BASH gives an error if you print, for
example, '--'. It interprets it as an option given... SuSv3 says that
printf must print whatever you pass as parameter.

>Also, zsh 4.0.x does not have a printf builtin. The printf in the
>4.1 branch is compliant to my knowledge but adds a good few features
>which go beyond the standards.

    But won't choke on 'printf --' ;)) And it's true, zsh 4.0.x
doesn't have a printf, sorry. Bad example chosen here O:)) It was
/bin/printf that was invoked, from sh-utils (that, BTW, aren't
compliant. It won't print '--help', for example.

    Raúl