From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <c4jdis$bo9$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <ed3bfc752c237028a2f4145e43fda2e7@9srv.net>, <406C1811.5030306@swtch.com>, <c4j372$66l$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports
Date: Fri,  2 Apr 2004 10:09:57 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4ed0b3e8-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> if rc is not stable enough it should be made stable enough.
> a _starting point_ for testing plan9 rc could be the ''trip'' test that 
> comes with byrons rc.

the starting point in question proved to be a bit of a problem. the very 
first thing (not even a test i presume) of trip.rc is:

# trip.rc -- take a tour of rc
# Invoke as "path-to-new-rc < trip.rc"

rc=$0
echo tripping $rc


byrons rc (brc) thinks that $0 is:
/home/eleberg/plan9/bin/rc

but plan9 rc (9rc) thinks $0 is:
/dev/stdin

i am sure there is a prefectly good reason for this. does anybody know 
the reason and have the time to explain?


bengt