From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from newton.hartwick.edu ([147.205.85.10]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <24766>; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:04:14 -0500 Received: from c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com (147.205.108.160 [147.205.108.160]) by newton.hartwick.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id X52J43M1; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:58 -0500 Received: by c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:21 -0500 From: Decklin Foster To: rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu Subject: Re: what if?, suggestion to re-instate the alternative if not syntax... Message-ID: <19991209030021.C305@debian> References: <199912081513.QAA05638@trillian.softwell.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <199912081513.QAA05638@trillian.softwell.se>; from bengt@softwell.se on Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 10:13:37AM -0500 Bengt Kleberg writes: > Would it be possible to re-instate if not, ie the weird way of > writing } else { that was around in rc in the very beginning? (and > still is in Plan9 rc). I'm curious, what is this syntax? Anyway, my real question is, how important is being exactly like the original rc as a design consideration of this shell? I was recently thinking that i would have used 'foreach foo (bar)' (like Perl) instead of 'for (foo in bar)'. But you couldn't go and change it now what with all these scripts already in place. Then there's my other message about mucking with ~. I can probably find more to complain about :-) -- Decklin Written with Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org/