From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <509071940703120637n10269f18pb6e7cc06d3cc7cba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:37:03 -0400
From: "Anthony Sorace" <anothy@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] How can I shift a variable other than ?
In-Reply-To: <910d1aa11b64a53a11c33f91a13bfdb6@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070312085028.GJ12719@kris.home>
	<910d1aa11b64a53a11c33f91a13bfdb6@coraid.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 203c3944-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

what's being proposed here for addition to rc is totally different
from the mash/inferno-sh case.

in the inferno case, we had two different authors with some
substantial differences in ideas for constructing shells, in terms of
syntax, semantics, and features. you're correct that trying to add
rog's (right?) ideas into mash would've been a disaster, and i think
everyone here would agree that we shouldn't try to cram that sort of
difference in the fundamentals of building shells into rc.

but that simply isn't what's being proposed. the feature to be added
is entirely in line with rc's existing grammar and design principles.
it's a much more incremental type of growth, and is an equally valid
result of research.

i understand that your position does leave room for moving off vt220s,
but it does seem to imply that we shouldn't add new kernel devices
without scrapping plan9 and starting over.

i also find it bizarre that you can call rc "old cruft"...

anthony