From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from doolittle.vetsci.su.OZ.AU ([129.78.148.2]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <45334>; Fri, 13 Mar 1992 04:24:45 -0600
Received: by doolittle.vetsci.su.oz.au id <49223>; Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:24:10 +1000
From: John (I've got some bad news for you, sunshine) Mackin <john@vetsci.su.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 04:14:22 -0600
To: The rc Mailing List <rc@archone.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: comments, newlines 
In-Reply-To: <5714.700437948@golem>
Message-ID: <199203132014.5018.rc.bagel@vetsci.su.oz.au>
X-Face: 39seV7n\`#asqOFdx#oj/Uz*lseO_1n9n7rQS;~ve\e`&Z},nU1+>0X^>mg&M.^X$[ez>{F
 k5[Ah<7xBWF<un6={nlL7Om5<0UsuHKjCxs)C$`DP.N'-LLb8=8)"a@d2bG-f7qD2AJ#UZ>-@-ru?&
 @4K4-b`ydd^`(n%Z{

I agree with Paul.  The rule doesn't need to be changed.  In fact, I think
it definitely should NOT be, since I think it makes scripts significantly
harder to read if comments are inserted inside continued commands.

But:

    The way in which the rule is interpreted doesn't matter.  If
    \+nl is interpreted even in comments, then the shell will see

    	x=(1 # 2 3)

This doesn't make sense.  The rule is, ignore everything between #
and newline, INCLUDING THE #.  I mean, if you go

echo foo # bar

you get "foo", not "foo #".  So if backslash were to be interpreted
at the end of a comment, that wouldn't happen, and it would all work.

And now for my real reason for sending this: there is one thing about
# that I have never liked.  I have complained privately about this (long
ago), but Byron didn't agree with me: so let's see if we can get some
public support for _this_ idea.

I claim that # should only be seen as a comment introducer if it is
preceded by whitespace or at the start of the line.  So if you do

echo foo#bar

you should, in my view, get "foo#bar".  You do in sh.  You don't in rc:
Byron thinks # should introduce a comment even if it is in the middle
of a word.  I think this is plainly wrong.  Opinions?

OK,
John.