From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 23954 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2020 04:04:01 -0000
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 1 Dec 2020 04:04:01 -0000
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id DC9E69C281; Tue,  1 Dec 2020 14:03:56 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8D59C204;
	Tue,  1 Dec 2020 14:03:44 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id B9CF39C204; Tue,  1 Dec 2020 14:03:42 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from fourwinds.com (fourwinds.com [63.64.179.162])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C96B9C203
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Tue,  1 Dec 2020 14:03:42 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by fourwinds.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0B143fHJ395341
 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:03:41 -0800
Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (jon@localhost)
 by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 0B143feP395338
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:03:41 -0800
Message-Id: <202012010403.0B143feP395338@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
From: Jon Steinhart <jon@fourwinds.com>
To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
In-reply-to: <alpine.LRH.2.23.453.2011301946410.14253@waffle.shalott.net>
References: <8b580c46-ecfb-9383-ed43-08108b3ee7bf@tllds.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.23.453.2011301946410.14253@waffle.shalott.net>
Comments: In-reply-to jason-tuhs@shalott.net
 message dated "Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:59:18 -0800."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <395336.1606795421.1@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:03:41 -0800
X-JON-SPAM: local delivery
Subject: Re: [TUHS] The UNIX Command Language (1976)
X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

jason-tuhs@shalott.net writes:
>
> Bourne commented on the omission of goto from the Bourne shell, "I 
> eliminated goto in favour of flow control primitives like if and for. 
> This was also considered rather radical departure from the existing 
> practice."
>
> Was this decision contentious at all?  Was there a specific reason for 
> goto's exclusion in the Bourne shell?

I don't remember if this story has been told here before or not but I got
it from Steve a few months ago.  Ever wonder by the shell was symmetrical
with if and fi, case and esac, but then had do and done?  Reason was that
by the time Steve wrote the shell, Ken had written the od command and dug
in his heels and wouldn't change the name.

Jon