From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <86fwpz55nj.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <257867.782e4d7b.wsc0.mx@tumtum.plumbweb.net> <5ddd9deccbea5e8556dfc0c228b63311@ladd.quanstro.net> <86vcythf8h.fsf@cmarib.ramside> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:52:17 +0000 Message-ID: From: Jacob Todd To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555b2226c4dff04a02ddc83 Subject: Re: [9fans] Making read(1) an rc(1) builtin? Topicbox-Message-UUID: c9e0d30c-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --00032555b2226c4dff04a02ddc83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This whole discussion has been absurd. On Apr 5, 2011 11:50 AM, "ron minnich" wrote: > This discussion is interesting. > > "rc is not as good a shell as bash because it lacks built-ins that > make it a good programming language for writing an acme extension" > > Did I summarizer it correctly? Once summarized, am I the only one who > finds it absurd? > > ron > --00032555b2226c4dff04a02ddc83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This whole discussion has been absurd.

On Apr 5, 2011 11:50 AM, "ron minnich"= <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote= :
> This discussion is interesting.
>
= > "rc is not as good a shell as bash because it lacks built-ins tha= t
> make it a good programming language for writing an acme extension"= ;
>
> Did I summarizer it correctly? Once summarized, am I the= only one who
> finds it absurd?
>
> ron
>
--00032555b2226c4dff04a02ddc83--