From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:54:20 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <d6baa5f54c622edce7a244912b077ace@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF9FGtTdRtv2Le=nmYVa79USiAoyztZCv2RBRyf66CXHfdD8sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aad110f0bff143c1ae7a35de36c54f81@quintile.net>
	<2784e00520033948eaf532a780ebad35@quintile.net>
	<CAF9FGtSP3Z5K7qK4d4HXaHbai3bqpadJdo=xryFfRC2PWfj4mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<d76a5b7628c4d38cb1bd20013ec5905f@coraid.com>
	<CAF9FGtTdRtv2Le=nmYVa79USiAoyztZCv2RBRyf66CXHfdD8sg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC 2013] Implement plan9 commands in Go, Goblin
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4d845dea-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Apr 30 18:50:42 EDT 2013, gleb.ax.sh@gmail.com wrote:
> > syntax is: var=val cmd
> Sure, foo=() bar=() baz=() { ... } works, but that's not very practical.

i don't see the practical issue.  the idiom described works fine.

not liking the syntax is not a good reason to introduce incompatable
ways of doing things.

- erik