From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-relay-2.mv.us.adobe.com ([130.248.1.2]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2408>; Wed, 26 May 1993 15:14:10 -0400
Received: by mail-relay-2.mv.us.adobe.com; id AA28400; Wed, 26 May 93 10:57:41 -0700
Received: by astro.mv.us.adobe.com; id AA03677; Wed, 26 May 93 10:58:36 -0700
Date:	Wed, 26 May 1993 13:58:36 -0400
From:	haahr@mv.us.adobe.com (Paul Haahr)
Message-Id: <9305261758.AA03677@astro.mv.us.adobe.com>
To:	culliton@srg.af.mil
Subject: Re:  Differences between Duff's rc and Byron's
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu

> The Plan 9 man pages say "~ subject pattern ..." where subject is
> singular (Duff's paper says "a string") and under BUGS the Plan 9 man
> page says "There should be a way to match patterns against whole lists
> rather than just single strings."  Byron allows subject to be a list.

oh, i think i misinterpreted this comment.  i had always thought it
to mean that Duff wanted a way to match lists against lists.
(in both rcs,
	~ (a b) (b a)
and
	~ (a b) (a c)
return true;  my interpretation of Duff's comment was that he wanted
something that would return false for both, since the lists are not
identical.)

my understanding was that Byron's and Duff's versions had exactly
the same semantics for ~.  can someone verify this?

paul