From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from relay1.UU.NET ([192.48.96.5]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2679>; Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:54:29 -0400
Received: from spool.uu.net (via LOCALHOST) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13322; Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:54:03 -0400
Received: from srg.UUCP by uucp3.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
	(queueing-rmail) id 155240.24376; Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:52:40 EDT
Received: from ceres.srg.af.mil by srg.srg.af.mil
	id aa21993; Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:28:27 EDT
From:	culliton@srg.af.mil (Tom Culliton x2278)
X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
To:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: Another vote for a built-in read function
Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:29:17 -0400
Message-Id: <9309171529.aa25902@ceres.srg.af.mil>

I'm for adding builtin read, even if it's just to cut down on the amount
of discussion here about adding it as builtin, and/or how to implement a
read function. ;-) ;-) ;-)

On a more serious note, I tend to flip-flop on whether read should be
builtin or not.  It's definitely the strongest contender of all the
proposals that have been made, but at the moment I lean towards the
"Not" side.  My current thinking is along the lines of, "rc is supposed
to be a shell, not a text filter", which seems at least as compelling as
Boyd's famous comment that a shell should run commands not have them
built into it.

Tom