From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-relay-1.mv.us.adobe.com ([130.248.1.1]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2688>; Tue, 30 Jun 1992 11:29:13 -0400
Received: by mail-relay-1.mv.us.adobe.com; id AA04227; Tue, 30 Jun 92 08:28:55 -0700
Received: from utopia.adobe.com by adobe.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA16036; Tue, 30 Jun 92 08:28:53 PDT
Received: by utopia.adobe.com (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA11747; Tue, 30 Jun 92 08:29:58 PDT
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 1992 11:29:58 -0400
From:	haahr@adobe.com
Message-Id: <9206301529.AA11747@utopia.adobe.com>
To:	dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk
Subject: Re: -s flag
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu

> It's a lot better to fix Jove than to 'fix' rc.  You could do this like
> vi/ex does it.  If I execute a subshell command in vi, then any % is
> replaced by the current filename, ie
> 	:!mv % %.bak
> would be expanded to
> 	:!mv foo foo.bak
> etc.  This is a lot better than hacking a kludge into rc for the sake of
> one editor.

i disagree vehemently.  shell variable subsitution is a much better defined
mechanism than vi's subtituting for %.  (e.g., how do you quote %?  what if
you invoked vi without a filename?)  in general, i take issue with any
program blindly editing input that the user has typed for another program,
even if that other program is a shell.

now, one could make the argument that the file should be stored in an
environment variable, e.g. $file, and if every editor were coerced to
use rc's notion of control-a separated lists, that would even work for
multiple files.  but $n is a logical place to put the file names, and
has no other conventional meaning for subshells invoked from editors.

even before Hugh posted his explaination on why jove does what it does,
i tended to agree with John that rc should support -s with the same meaning
as sh's -s, because it has evolved as a convention among shells, part of
the standard options set, like -c and -e.  now i'm convinced.

paul