From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from MTA-07-4.privateemail.com ([68.65.122.27]) by ewsd; Wed Oct  7 15:03:14 -0400 2020
Received: from MTA-07.privateemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by MTA-07.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED3160046
	for <9front@9front.org>; Wed,  7 Oct 2020 15:03:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.20.151.221])
	by MTA-07.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7874D60034
	for <9front@9front.org>; Wed,  7 Oct 2020 19:03:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:02:51 -0700
From: Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: new rc parser: do we want it?
Message-ID: <20201007190251.GA197746@alice>
References: <ABF99C7B10A3BD48F50EB78A213567A4@eigenstate.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ABF99C7B10A3BD48F50EB78A213567A4@eigenstate.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: CSS descriptor-oriented SOAP scripting app 

ori@eigenstate.org once said:
> But mostly, it prevents us from diverging from
> plan9port.
>
> Do we want this?

Yes. I've been using it locally ever since it went into plan9port.
It's a small improvement and I think it's important that rc(1) is
essentially the same everywhere.

Cheers,
  Anthony