On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:32:30AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> The problem is that then new scrips wouldn't be portable.
>ya. right.  is this this the same reason i should check my c code
>with the johnson c compiler (being very careful to not use function
>prototypes) to make sure it works everwhere?

I never suggest such things.

>and now that we've thought of it, we can't fix any rc bugs.  since
>scripts that rely on fixed bugs won't run everwhere.
>
>c'mon.  what kind of dusty-deck thinking is this?

The difference here is that there has always been one rc (ignoring the 
UNIX version, which is gratuitously incompatible), unlike the bourne 
shells. One of the great things about it has always been that you could 
write rc scripts and know that they'd work on rc wherever they were run. 
If you start extending the spec, then things start to suck, truly.

>doesn't run on plan 9.  it's written in limbo and depends on
>features of inferno that are not part of plan 9.

It runs on Inferno, which runs on Plan 9. You can script for Plan 9 in 
Inferno's sh. You can even script for UNIX in it. I've done both. It 
works. It's not even ugly.

At any rate, someone might write a new shell which is neither es nor 
Inferno's shell, which is designed to run on Plan 9. I'd still rather 
just use Inferno's shell, myself.

-- 
Kris Maglione

A fool and his money soon go partying.