From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:43:17 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <2fb2c31fa3cb67d0f3fe70f628f24bf6@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <142CEA85-FE43-4D87-B08D-BF151422BC07@bitblocks.com>
References: <201107220536.p6M5agtv019617@freefriends.org>
	<f817d7d12b82c93ba3b904e39f1b29db@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<20110722130310.GO1803@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
	<142CEA85-FE43-4D87-B08D-BF151422BC07@bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 Go (Was: GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04b2a92e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i think we're going off the deep end.

my comments were ment to draw this line
- go used to be compatable with plan old yacc,
- and i don't think the go authors really want to depend on yacc,

so the conclusion i would draw is that the path
of least resistance is to remove the fluff from go
and be done with it.  i bet the go authors would
even accept that patch.  i'd bet that bit snuck in.

- erik