[RFC, PATCH] new applet resize #2

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 22 September 2006 4:25 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:25:04PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> >On Thursday 21 September 2006 5:45 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> 
> >> It's ment as a suggestion to emit the string conditionally in case
> >> somebody wants to preserve the behaviour of the bloated normal binary
> >> that is not in busybox.
> >
> >The normal binary?  (Rummage...)  Ah, so there is.  Part of X from _1984_.  
> >Wow.
> >
> >Ok, preserving the behavior of that strikes me as a good thing.  I guess 
that 
> 
> I've applied it as r16176 for now.
> Feel free to wipe it out of the tree like you did with taskset, if you
> feel like.

Done.

"I'll think about it" != "Ooh, that means I should apply it".  It means I need 
to think about how best to do this.

The purpose of this applet is to run from the command line?  Or are we 
encouraging people to have it in their /etc/profile?  If they start typing 
before their /etc/profile runs (or they "echo command | sh", don't we have 
the same problem with bbsh interactive mode, where it shouldn't do this if 
there's already data waiting on stdin?  (Or should it discard any data 
waiting on stdin?)

And _if_ we do this, I'd like to re-use the code that bbsh is using to do this 
probing for interactive mode, rather than having two implementations in the 
tree.  I believe I _said_ that.

Also, I'd rather not add new code into the tree with "or later" and then have 
to go back and remove it as I get around to making the license notices 
uniform.

> >I am already not getting warnings about unused parameters.  Why are you 
> >getting them?
> 
> because i asked to get them since they remind me that it's a todo (for
> me, at least) ;)

Why?  What's the point?  You ask the compiler to give you a warning and then 
you tell the compiler not to give you that warning _here_.  Why do this 
thing?  There are often good reasons for unused function parameters.  There 
are never good reasons for unused local variables.

I really don't want to fill the tree with "humor the compiler's warning 
generator" markup.  I repeat, I don't ask the compiler to give me warnings 
that it's not capable of generating competently.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.