From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <910d1aa11b64a53a11c33f91a13bfdb6@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:26:03 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] How can I shift a variable other than ?
In-Reply-To: <20070312085028.GJ12719@kris.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1fca1c2e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Mar 12 03:51:10 EST 2007, bsdaemon@comcast.net wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:14:08AM +0100, Martin Neubauer wrote:
> This is entirely beside the point. Breaking old scripts is the least of 
> the issues. The point is that there's little value in altering rc, 
> compared to writing a new shell. Compare mash and sh on Inferno and 
> you'll see what I mean, as I've said. If mash had simply been extended, 
> there would be either a slightly more or sligtly less crufty mash, 
> instead of sh.

you've said this multiple times, and we still disagree.

> 
> If rc is to be updated, it should simply be replaced with something 
> better. If Plan 9 is a research OS, as has been suggested in this 
> thread, then why are we to add features to an old shell, rather than 
> rethinking it? The former has nothing to do with research. I'm too tired 
> to argue saliently, but the point is that if rc is lacking, we've been 
> shown better ways already, and they should be instrumented or improved 
> upon properly, not simply hacked onto old cruft.

it sounds like you're the right man for the job.  why don't you get
started?  i'll be happy to test it when it has a manual page and the
silly bugs knocked out.

- erik