search

mitnk / cicada

An old-school bash-like Unix shell written in Rust
https://hugo.wang/cicada/
MIT License
981 stars 50 forks source link

Is it aiming to become an actual POSIX-compatible shell? #4

Closed vi closed 6 years ago

vi commented 7 years ago

If yes then functions should also be in the todo list instead of won't do.

SentToDevNull commented 7 years ago

A similar question would be feature compatibility with respect to other shells. For example, will my {bash,zsh,ksh,sh,csh} scripts work with this shell?

mitnk commented 7 years ago

Thanks @vi and @SentToDevNull. I just added a FAQ section in readme. Please check it out.

IBPX commented 7 years ago

Why functions support is in won't do list?

I don't think i have interests or energy to add (bash) functions support or (bash) shell scripting ability.

While I realize it would be a lot of work, I'm not sure I understand what bash has to do with it; functions are supported in practically every shell, and are even part of the POSIX standard and sh.

As the above anwsers hints, while cicada is trying to be POSIX, but it will not be a fully POSIX shell. However, If any command pattern is common and cicada is missing, we can add it.

vi commented 7 years ago

Is Cicada a building block of an imaginary "Rust all the way down" operating system (kernel in Rust, drivers in Rust, standard library in Rust, system tools in Rust, so #!/bin/sh-compatible shell also in Rust) or just a fancy "login" shell to type commands into, not for scripts?

mitnk commented 7 years ago

@vi a simple shell for typing commands into, I guess.

@IBPX not really related to bash, I'll update it a bit.

mitnk commented 7 years ago

I've seen too many surprises on "functions will not be supported? (wtf?)" ;) I may need to put it back in todo list.

mitnk commented 6 years ago

Closing this issue. Please find FQA section for it here: https://github.com/mitnk/cicada/blob/master/docs/faq.md#will-cicada-be-posix-compatible