From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5b671d750f4fa72e8e01eee94926586b@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] What the reason of much change of rc(1)
From: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <20030717161449.8803.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:51:19 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fa2a666e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> There's always Byron's rc.  It does one thing that I really like:
> lists can be broken across lines without trailing backslashes:

interesting: i never knew byron's rc did that, though
i used it for years. i did the same thing in the inferno
shell. actually, that's the only line continuation mechanism
in the inferno shell; i never saw a pressing need for backslashes...

(although one thing i liked about es, an rc relative,
was that you could use backslash escapes, e.g.

	echo one line\nand another

literal newlines screw up my indentation, so
i often end up setting $nl to a single newline character.
)

> Very handy for cutting and pasting.

also for using the output of pipelines, e.g.

	ls | grep -v '\.(tgz|tar\.gz)'

edit further as appropriate, bung "files=(" at the top of the output, and ")"
at the bottom, Send, and script at will.
actually, that's probably what you were thinking of...

i do miss this in rc sometimes.

BTW, byron's rc probably has too many subtle differences
from the real rc to be considered a possible alternative for
interpreting plan 9 scripts.