Re: early reaction(s) to rc

[gatech!skeeve!arnold@harvard.harvard.edu (Arnold D. Robbins)]

> (On a point of pure gustation, I do have to
> say I don't like the name much -- but on the other hand I can't think of
> a better one right now either: the obvious sigbegin doesn't appeal,
> and sigenter (as the antonym of sigexit) doesn't sound right either.
> Suggestions, any rcer's?)

Shorten it to SIGSTART.

> As a quite separate issue I'd like to address the question of telling
> whether or not the shell is interactive.  sh has $-, and $- has many
> puzzling bugs, and inconsistencies between different versions of sh;
> these render a very pleasing concept very hard to use in practice.

My $.02:

	$options is a list of (sorted?) command line options
	that are in effect:

	; echo options are: $options
	options are: -i -n -x

This makes it easy to see what's turned on, although turning things
on and off one at a time is harder, in both rc programs and inside rc itself.

This is the start of an idea, anyway; I acknowledge it's not full blown.

> I have some further comments about the idea of root prompt, su, and
> the sigstartup proposal,

Byron has told me in private mail he doesn't think the shell should
automatically change prompts for root.  I disagree, but not terribly
strongly.  My own suggestion for a root prompt would be ';; '.

Arnold Robbins -- The Basement Computer		| Laundry increases
Internet: arnold@skeeve.ATL.GA.US		| exponentially in the
UUCP:	{ gatech, emory }!skeeve!arnold		| number of children.
Bitnet:	Forget it. Get on a real network.	|    -- Miriam Robbins