From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:23:34 -0400 From: Kris Maglione To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] How can I shift a variable other than ? Message-ID: <20070311202334.GI12719@kris.home> References: <00a0d91965e54a4bfb03ea9070ed2e8b@coraid.com> <20070310173030.GG12719@kris.home> <20070310215344.GH12719@kris.home> <45F3F249.7040400@proweb.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F3F249.7040400@proweb.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f79c2d8-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:12:57PM +0000, matt wrote: > > You miss the point entirely. > >This might be petty but, no Kris, you missed the point. > >If you want further proof, see rc(1) BUGS I never said that rc(1) was perfect. I'm all for rewriting it, and=20 fixing bugs. I'm not for breaking its syntax, though. It makes far more=20 sense to leave rc as rc(1) and to write a new shell which deals with the=20 shortcomings of rc. This is not comprable to writing a new os, and it=20 gives us far more freedom. If the Inferno people had decided to 'update'=20 mash instead of writing sh(1), it would have been grossly unfortunate,=20 because Inferno's shell is probably the best shell I've come across. And if rc is to have such a massive revamping, there's no good reason to=20 keep calling it rc. --=20 Kris Maglione The faster the plane, the narrower the seats. --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF9GVGseQZD8Aui4wRAuhCAJ9er21wdujgOow5DigThnVWX4bHBACdGvVE F9H4DIMUzO7Efr4atKSiu4A= =oBE7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN--