From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:27:01 -0400 From: Russ Cox To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] acme tags for shell scripts In-Reply-To: <725ea6b28a715adbec4b126456613df6@plan9.escet.urjc.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <725ea6b28a715adbec4b126456613df6@plan9.escet.urjc.es> Topicbox-Message-UUID: eeebbb20-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > The problem here is that this mechanisms are not uniform. In rio, /dev/winid is > the current id of the window. In an script run in acme this is done > with $winid. In win (in acme) the dir is bound in /dev/acme. Wouldn't all this > have to be the same?. It's true that they're not uniform. I'm not sure what you mean by "have to be the same". It would definitely be confusing if /dev/winid gave you acme id's under acme but rio id's under rio. I agree if you mean that all the context should be in the name space where it belongs. The reason acme sets $winid is that I put it in (originally for the Getdir script, which replaced the builtin Dotfiles) while I was using the Unix acme, and there I don't have the luxury of per-process name spaces, but I do have per-process environments. I'll probably add your bind next time I'm in there. Russ