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 <2718>; Sun, 28 Jun 1992 17:07:26 -0400
Received: by doolittle.vetsci.su.oz.au id <49162>; Mon, 29 Jun 1992 07:06:54 +1000
From:	John (_You_ hide, they seek.) Mackin <john@vetsci.su.oz.au>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jun 1992 17:01:19 -0400
To:	The rc Mailing List <rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: recent -s patch 
In-Reply-To: <92Jun28.163516edt.2538@groucho.cs.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <199206290701.19089.rc.balij@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{

Scott is quite right.  Just goes to show how little I've ever understood
that damned -s option anyway.  Someone who cares about it should fix the
patch so that -s doesn't imply -i.  Hey, can anyone on the list tell us
all if they have any reason at all for wanting -s?  Inquiring minds
want to know.  So far, we have Rich's reason, which is that -s is
passed to the invoked shell by `the OSF/1 script command'.  Any
other takers?

To put it another way, can anyone show me any real use for -s?  That
is, why is the damned idea good?  Try as I might I can't see any.
(This shouldn't be construed as an argument for keeping it out of
rc.  To the contrary, I will always be willing to entertain rc features
that keep it compatible (in appropriate ways) with traditional shells.)

OK,
John.