atom feed12 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-bugsRe: bin/4154: wish /bin/sleep handled...
FromSent OnAttachments
den...@home.comJul 23, 1997 10:18 pm 
Jason ThorpeJul 23, 1997 11:09 pm 
Tim LiddelowJul 23, 1997 11:41 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 24, 1997 2:06 am 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 24, 1997 2:11 am 
Bruce EvansJul 24, 1997 5:25 am 
Jason ThorpeJul 24, 1997 9:43 am 
Tim LiddelowJul 24, 1997 5:00 pm 
Sergei S. LaskavyJul 25, 1997 1:28 am 
Jason ThorpeJul 25, 1997 7:54 am 
FreeBSD Technical ReaderJul 26, 1997 12:28 pm 
FreeBSD Technical ReaderJul 26, 1997 12:29 pm 
Subject:Re: bin/4154: wish /bin/sleep handled fractions of a second.
From:Jason Thorpe (thor@nas.nasa.gov)
Date:Jul 24, 1997 9:43:05 am
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-bugs

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:41:47 +1000 TLid@cybec.com.au (Tim Liddelow) wrote:

How on earth can you call such a script "portable" if it clearly uses something not specified in POSIX?

Pedantic, man! The new /bin/sleep will handle BOTH formats. It handles a superset of the POSIX spec. No, it doesn't conform EXACTLY to the POSIX spec but it _will_ handle all cases that the original /bin/sleep did. I agree that of course it won't barf and be an error case now if you include a '.' but I still think that's a good thing.

You'll note I was speaking with regard to the scripts that use such a feature - the submitter specifically used the word "portable", and I am asserting that such scripts are _not_ portable if they use a feature that is not defined by POSIX.

Hmm... ware there any shells out there that implement sleep(1) as a builtin?

Hmm, I had planned on looking up a few other things in XPG4 today, so perhaps I will also look up /bin/sleep's behavior, as well, to satisfy my curiosity regarding what X/Open says should be a valid vs. invalid argument.

Anyhow, allowing /bin/sleep to have sub-second granularity may be a "cool" feature, but its utility is limited by the fact that you can't count on it being there wherever the script may run.