From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from doolittle.vetsci.su.OZ.AU ([129.78.148.2]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2624>; Sun, 28 Jun 1992 15:54:16 -0400
Received: by doolittle.vetsci.su.oz.au id <49162>; Mon, 29 Jun 1992 05:53:46 +1000
From:	John (_You_ hide, they seek.) Mackin <john@vetsci.su.oz.au>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jun 1992 15:47:44 -0400
To:	The rc Mailing List <rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: recent -s patch
In-Reply-To: <92Jun26.001135edt.2536@groucho.cs.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <199206290547.18427.rc.balez@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{

    From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu>

    I don't think -s should imply -i, as the patch does.  If I want both
    I can type both.   

    Is -s going to be standard, or will most people decline to apply the
    patch?

Scott and all,

I don't have a lot of time now, and have more mail to write yet, so
please forgive me if I am a little terse.

The point of -s is not `how should it work', but rather `how -must-
it work'.  No one wants to add -s to rc just because they think
it's a good idea.  They want (in some cases, need) to add -s to rc
_in order to be compatible with the de-facto standard for command
line arguments to UNIX shells_.  That's the point.  This is how
the -s argument works in sh and csh, and therefore, if rc is to
have a -s argument at all, this is how it MUST work in rc.

Personally, I have no need for -s and don't care whether it is
in or out: but if it is to be in, I insist that it work just as
it does in other shells.  Equally, rc cannot define new semantics
for -c or -e, etc.  I hope that's clear.

OK,
John.