From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from oldp.astro.wisc.edu ([128.104.39.15]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2724>; Thu, 3 Dec 1992 01:22:51 -0500
Received: by oldp.astro.wisc.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA10599; Thu, 3 Dec 1992 00:22:42 -0600
Message-Id: <9212030622.AA10599@oldp.astro.wisc.edu>
To:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: All I want for Christmas ... 
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 1992 01:22:41 -0500
From:	Alan Watson <alan@oldp.astro.wisc.edu>
X-Mts: smtp

1. exec

The only time I use exec interactively is when I install a new version
of rc.  I think it would be a poor choice to differentiate the
behaviour of exec based on the interactiveness of the shell.

Part of the reason that I would like the change is that I often use
exec in scripts ... but I also often make mistakes in scripts.
Dumping the environment to stderr after a failed exec would be a
useful debugging aid.  It also just seems "the right thing to do."
However, Byron's reservations are valid.

2. -s

Hey, yeah, now you mention it I remember that coming round.  My
apologies for bringing it up again.

3. Let me make one more comment, which arises from a recent discussion
in comp.unix.shell:

	; rc <<EOF
	...
	. /dev/tty
	EOF

is interactive after the here document, but

	; rc <<EOF
	...
	exec </dev/tty
	EOF

is not.  Should this be so?  (And, I guess, is this even important?)

Please don't take my suggestions as criticism: I have silently thanked
Tom Duff and Byron more time than I can recall for providing me with a
shell which behaves in a simple, rational, and predictable manner in
almost every situation I have come across.  What's more, it even does
what the man page says it does ...

Alan.