From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <544954.87352.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:45:16 -0700 From: "Brian L. Stuart" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <200910060740.aa94573@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] mishandling empty lists - let's fix it Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8142e910-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > I prefer my version to your=0A> versions. I can see uses for them alrea= dy.=0A> > =0A> > ron=0A> =0A> So do I, though I'm not sure I would have cal= led the latter=0A> "my"=0A> versions.=A0 That's not the point however.=A0 S= ince I=0A> don't seem to=0A> been have sufficiently clear, I'll reword it a= bit:=0A> =0A> There are a lot basic UNIX/p9 utilities which treat empty= =0A> lists=0A> inconsistently.=A0 It would be nice if there were=0A> fewer= , but you=0A> can't arrange that without breaking many things.=0A=0AUltima= tely it comes down to a question of perspective and=0Aaesthetics. If you v= iew these tools as primarily programs=0Athat act on files listed on the com= mand line, then you would=0Aprefer some of the proposals for change that ha= ve been made.=0AIf you view these tools as primarily filters to be connecte= d=0Aby pipes, then the command line arguments are just conveniences=0Aso as= not to type < and > as often. Then you prefer the tools=0Aas they have be= en. Neither perspective is a bug, for each=0Afulfills it's requirements.= =0A=0ALet each code and maintain what fits their preference and=0Aaesthetic= . If others like it, they will use if. If they=0Adon't they won't.=0A=0AN= ow let's make room for a discussion on ARM ports.=0A=0ABLS=0A