[BusyBox] re: Before .50 ? Can we get 'trap' <smile>

[larry at doolittle.boa.org]

> Not to make you feel bad or anything, Michael, but you're the first person on
> the mailing list to voice any interest in adding trap. Ever.

Probably only because there are so many other defects with lash
that everyone with serious shell needs has bailed out and uses ash.
trap is a legitimate feature of a real Bourne shell, and should
go in eventually.

trap is not on my list of itches to scratch; since I don't use
it, I don't understand it in depth, and would probably bungle
an implementation if I tried.  So I recommend that someone who
_does_ use it and _does_ understand it and _does_ want it in
busybox take the effort to put it in _right_ (and, if the code
is more than a kbyte or so, make it a compile-time option).

> That being said, we'll be happy to consider a well-implemented version of
> trap. Pitching in with Larry, Vladimir and Erik (who are the main hackers on
> Busybox sh) would be your best bet.

My exhortation to everyone is to stop messing around with lash
(at least once we get a version in 0.50pre that doesn't crash),
and switch efforts to a shell that is actually designed to have
proper Bourne syntax and grammar.  I think we are stuck with lash
for 0.50, since nobody has finished job control for hush, or made
ash small enough and/or integrated enough.  I may have some time
to spend on hush again in April, so maybe we can bring something
together for 0.51.  Volunteers of all stripes welcome.

        - Larry