wouldn't it be less confusing if the proposed built-in sleep function were given a new name instead of overloading "sleep"?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:34 AM, konsolebox <konsole...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:23 PM Ilkka Virta <itvi...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > On 21.8. 02:35, Chet Ramey wrote: > > > I don't think there's a problem with a `syntax conflict' as long as any > > > builtin sleep accepts a superset of the POSIX options for sleep(1). > > > > The sleep in GNU coreutils accepts suffixes indicating minutes, hours > > and days (e.g. sleep 1.5m or sleep 1m 30s for 90 seconds). I didn't > > see support for those in konsolebox's patch, so while that's not > > conflicting syntax per se, the lack of that option might trip someone. > > That was intended, and this patch is basically just a copy of the > loadable version. I don't really find it necessary to make the builtin > sleep a complete copy of the external one. The code would significantly > increase if we add a parser for those formats. Also it's basically > people's fault for not reading documentation. One should be aware > enough if they enable the builtin. Mksh's sleep also does the same. > > Anyway I respect whatever Chet decides it to become. > > -- > konsolebox > >
