Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[boyd.roberts]

used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.

[9fans] Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Randolph Fritz]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:21:58PM +0200, boyd.roberts@ca-indosuez.com wrote:
> 
> used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.
> 

I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
time. :)  Now if only mk would become standard on Unix...

-- 
Randolph Fritz
Eugene, Oregon, USA

[9fans] Re: [9fans] Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Lucio De Re]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 03:29:16AM -0700, Randolph Fritz wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:21:58PM +0200, boyd.roberts@ca-indosuez.com wrote:
> > 
> > used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.
> > 
> 
> I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
> time. :)  Now if only mk would become standard on Unix...
> 
Amusingly, Linux came out originally with RC as its shell, and that led
me to the original Plan 9 papers, and from there to Plan 9.  I presume
I'm the only one who got here _that_ route!?

++L

[9fans] Re: [9fans] Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Richard]

Lucio De Re writes:
>Amusingly, Linux came out originally with RC as its shell, and that led
>me to the original Plan 9 papers, and from there to Plan 9.  I presume
>I'm the only one who got here _that_ route!?

who decided to use RC in early Linux?   Linus?

[9fans] Re: [9fans] Re: [9fans] Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Lucio De Re]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 12:16:21AM -0700, Richard wrote:
> 
> who decided to use RC in early Linux?   Linus?

I don't really know, but it was early enough (I think it may have been
before the great Torval/Tannembaum debate, even) to have been entirely
under Linus' development.

I seem to recall it involved a lack of public domain shells at the time.

In passing, I got to use the rather extraordinary command history
facility that was released with rc for unix and I must confess it
seemed adequate.  I may have more trouble today, of course.

I wonder if there isn't merit in recording one's commands in some
creative fashion (why have thirteen consecutive copies of "ls -l"
in the history file?) and handing them to PLUMB is some useful
manner?  Thoughts?

++L

Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Richard]

boyd roberts writes:

>used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.

Randolph Fritz writes:

>I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
>time.

do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just for scripts?

[9fans] Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Randolph Fritz]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:10:49PM -0700, Richard wrote:
> boyd roberts writes:
> 
> >used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.
> 
> Randolph Fritz writes:
> 
> >I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
> >time.
> 
> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just for scripts?

Yes, I do.  In fact I sometimes write little scripts interactively.  I
really appreciate the predictable quoting behavior.  On the other
hand, I do miss command completion and job control.  Still...I'm not
going back.

-- 
Randolph Fritz
Eugene, Oregon, USA

Re: Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Steve Simon]

Richard wrote:
> 
> boyd roberts writes:
> 
> >used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.
> 
> Randolph Fritz writes:
> 
> >I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
> >time.
> 
> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just for scripts?

I use it for scripts and interactive under Unix & NT.

There remains 1 minor bug to do with path eveluation under NT + Netware,
which I am pretty sure is a bug in Cygwin/NT/Netware. If anyone is
interested I shall be looking at this when my work machine gets upgraded
in the next week or two :-)

Réf. : Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun (RC for Unix)

[Fco. J. Ballesteros]

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard  <ru@ohio.river.org> writes:

    Richard> boyd roberts writes:
    >> used the unix rc for years; well written, solid as a rock.

    Richard> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just
    Richard> for scripts?

I use it for both. Very convenient. BTW, on ux you can use the
readline klud^H^H^H library so that rc can edit the command line. 

-- 
    ()    ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail 
    /\                          - against microsoft attachments