From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from faui01.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.2.1]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <24766>; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:24:49 -0500
Received: (from msfriedl@localhost)
	by faui01.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.8.8/8.1.16-FAU) id JAA29494; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:22:31 +0100 (MET)
Date:	Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:22:31 -0500
From:	Markus Friedl <Markus.Friedl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To:	Decklin Foster <fosterd@hartwick.edu>
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: what if?, suggestion to re-instate the alternative if not syntax...
Message-ID: <19991209092231.B26932@faui01.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <199912081513.QAA05638@trillian.softwell.se> <19991209030021.C305@debian>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <19991209030021.C305@debian>; from fosterd@hartwick.edu on Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 03:00:21AM -0500

On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Decklin Foster wrote:
> 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?

the 'if not' syntax.
please read http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~tjg/rc/misc/td.html

for(i){
	if(test -f /tmp/$i) echo $i already in /tmp
	if not cp $i /tmp
}


> 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)'.

why? this is a shell with a C-like syntax not a perl like
syntax. if you want perl go and use perl.

> 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 :-)

nope, rc is perfect.