Re: Compiled-in modules in static shell

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 23,  3:34pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: Compiled-in modules in static shell
}
} Is there any reason, why not all modules are compiled in for static
} shell (assuming, they can be compiled as found by configure)?

The main reason is to avoid producing an enormous executable.  Average
processor speed, memory, and disk capacity have all increased by a
factor of at least 4 since the zsh module system was introduced, and
operating systems have gotten better at running multiple copies of the
same executable, too, so maybe this isn't as much of an issue any more.
Still, the idea is not to slow zsh down with stuff that isn't essential,
particularly (as with the files module) if the same can be accomplished
with external programs.

Also keep in mind that the module system was originally intended only
to handle adding builtin commands, so by definition anything you could
do with a module you could also do with an external program (or a shell
function).

} I ask, because on Cygwin in default installation some pretty useful
} odules are missing (e.g. zpty - thus making some tests impossible).

I think zpty in particular is left out because it's the newest and least
likely to compile successfully on a given platform.

Even if we don't compile in all modules by default everywhere, there are
probably certain platforms (cygwin being one of the best examples) where
more of the modules ought to be included.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net