From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <220f0acb467e063064a07738b56bd9cc@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 2009 12:10:09 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <d50d7d460910051513j3a4139b4q95fea643c0a9769d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] mishandling empty lists - let's fix it
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8206d910-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> So I'd welcome commands which
> behave the new way, and I wouldn't have a problem calling them by
> other names.

My thinking is that a shell with slightly different command execution
semantics may be required, together with commands and/or built-in
commands and functions that behave consistently with the shell's
philosophical design.

In addition, I don't think an empty list should ever be implied, or at
minimum ought to be able to be specified explicitly, () would suit me
fine, '' may or may not be a viable alternative.

But we've drifted off a critique of conventional usage to the realms
of philosophical design and the terms of discussion are now very
different.

++L