From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]) by ewsd; Thu Oct 15 12:41:56 -0400 2020 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F2C868AA; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:41:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:cc:from:message-id; s= sasl; bh=EDyOwef19/HoAY6uqLdx7Q8dkyo=; b=XoYTaM5BHdp+/MQkpo69LJV 8b4/d4rsGEKgORBKoeS8N38wdU0otPk2Y8DpquqdsBE8/UJVz5oyq4MaY+2UwTmk RbXZox9v2rIsfSRLOYruQ9tKWolbImnzldBIEDhCsiawbcGwyj5uZlFVFX4yZImr e1MVCOS7i1pmxR3qwoq8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8C8868A9; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:41:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Received: from [10.0.1.4] (unknown [47.34.135.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB90E868A8; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:41:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:41:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: <665608A7-7FEA-446D-B120-2F1BB392A3D2@stanleylieber.com> References: <5EF01FE4B564E504DD635D7E391EE0C8@ewsd.inri.net> <00009C5C-5080-47F6-BCBE-C9495B739AAB@cpan.org> <6706647c-f194-4d94-9b92-584999388f4e@www.fastmail.com> <665608A7-7FEA-446D-B120-2F1BB392A3D2@stanleylieber.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9front] new rc parser: do we want it? To: 9front@9front.org CC: r@golang.org From: Romano Message-ID: <5197B1B6-D6CA-4A2C-ADF8-78B425A720DD@cpan.org> X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4F03B466-0F05-11EB-80F4-74DE23BA3BAF-09620299!pb-smtp2.pobox.com List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: immutable shader pipelining polling singleton scripting dependency-oriented database I probably didn't give enough context=2E TUPE was referring to the Bourne shell, at least according to to page 100= =2E So the comment is not referring to rc directly=2E I brought it up because of what Duffy wrote in "Rc -- The Plan 9 Shell" un= der Design Principles (section 28), which discusses Rc's heavy reliance on = Bourne's /bin/sh=2E I didn't see Duffy explicitly touch on why assignments = anywhere in the command line were restricted, and so considered the parenth= etical comment I found re: Bourne's shell to be the reason=2E On October 15, 2020 12:11:10 PM UTC, Stanley Lieber wrote: >On October 15, 2020 6:11:13 AM EDT, Ethan Gardener > wrote: >>On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 9:44 PM, Romano wrote: >>> There is a parenthetical comment on page 90 of "The UNIX Programming > >>> Environment": >>> "(Originally, assignments anywhere in the command line were passed >to >> >>> the command, but this interfered with dd(1)=2E)" >> >>So it was regular, initially=2E By the time I started to use Plan 9 & >P9P >>(2009 or so), it was broken=2E Rc was making errors of assignments after >>the command word *and* dd's syntax was different=2E But Rc wouldn't have >>been in TUPE, would it? I admit I never got around to reading it=2E > >if i understand correctly: > >tupe came out in 1984, and refers to rob's rewritten v8 sh[0]=2E > >rc[1] first appeared in v10, and must have been developed around 1988 >or 1989=2E > >rc's v10 online man page refers to it as "the plan 9 shell=2E" my print >edition is in storage, but i don't think it mentioned plan 9=2E the >online version may represent a later extraction from the labs' running >system=2E plan 9 was percolating at least as early as 1988=2E it's unclea= r >exactly when rc was first written, but based on the timeline of >releases it first shipped in v10=2E > >sl > >[0] http://man=2Ecat-v=2Eorg/unix_8th/1/sh >[1] http://man=2Ecat-v=2Eorg/unix_10th/1/rc