Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ari :prideified: (ar@is-a.cat)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jan-2025 23:54:16 JST ari :prideified:

   • Tulip ?️‍⚧️

   @domi @multisn8 there are some bsd fanentities that don't like it when someone uses a more modern shell for scripting.

   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jan-2025 23:54:15 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Tulip ?️‍⚧️

     @ar @domi @multisn8 Funniest is AFAIK arrays are originally from ksh, which all BSDs have.

     So to me it's a thing where POSIX should catch up, but maybe dash would end up being a blocker.

   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 00:09:42 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Tulip ?️‍⚧️
     • anna
     @navi @domi @ar @multisn8 dash wouldn't exactly conflict as it's not required to be everywhere or even widespread to get into POSIX, it just helps and it needs to not outright conflict (like the `local` keyword is horrible as there's different behavior between shells).
     
     Just that I think dash authors could argument against it getting in POSIX.
   • Embed this notice
     anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 00:09:43 JST anna

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Tulip ?️‍⚧️
     @lanodan @domi @ar @multisn8
     
     i want to open an issue with austin group about arrays to posix sh. ksh, bash, zsh, oil, and others all have it in basically the same syntax and semantics, and dash doesn't have feature that could conflict with it as far as i've seen
     
     and asking some folks on irc, none knows of that issue ever being opened, so, i wanna try when i have some time
   • Embed this notice
     anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 00:17:38 JST anna

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Tulip ?️‍⚧️
     @lanodan @domi @ar @multisn8
     
     i'm kinda ready to argue back, so we'll see. i'm hopeful because of how many other posix shells implement it.
     
     there's no real reason for posix sh to be stuck with *one* array per function ($@), it's silly.
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     kimapr (kimapr@ublog.kimapr.net)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 20:15:17 JST kimapr

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Tulip ?️‍⚧️
     • anna
     @navi @domi @ar @multisn8 @lanodan and this array sucks also, can't even do indirect indexing and passing it around is very expensive.
     
     when i was making one weird shell script and did it in posix sh (for religious and torture reasons) i eventually settled on implementing my own arrays with eval hacks (each element of an array is stored in its own variable and the "array variable" stores a prefix used to find them - eval is needed to reference the variables dynamically) - it was much better (both faster and pleasanter) than the previous $@-based approach and astronomically better than the "store an array as a newline-delimited list of encoded strings in a variable and pipe it into filters and store back the output to the variable" approach which is then astronomically better than the same thing but with NULs and no encoding - that one is unusably slow because POSIX sh doesn't even have a way to read a NUL-terminated string from a stream without invoking fucking dd for each fucking byte