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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 19066 invoked from network); 3 May 2023 13:07:41 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 May 2023 13:07:41 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D17414A1; Wed, 3 May 2023 23:07:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49A224149E for ; Wed, 3 May 2023 23:07:22 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-77d049b9040so3358276241.1 for ; Wed, 03 May 2023 06:07:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dartmouth.edu; s=google1; t=1683119241; x=1685711241; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dsCaF2LwN78nuva2NNceRAHPJWXquXl+fNHZajVsyDM=; b=UUgevNOQt2lWL7Yt/hzQwxaxgACUzg6mFJ1eWKgmuFnmTF+iWkYHv2oEKV/Jxv4cqS onFjtysMebLpSfaXI9Ix2pk3uL77Sex+5U0mFRqhimCpGGNVkx9+xgvYGAPL7W7hL2sZ cF3Vg/sMClzShHb6VlAN+S//XyDts07/SqSRvf+qHbqEuWkIBwNng8Df5Sa4IwHIVQcr qt/oagPyM86d0maNCAQex44O/hXNq3l3zkbesxj2t2medNkIviU9Xctq95kirxDDhBgn Xn1PCnpoY/WbWQTeImVz8uDk1JHko+CrHUl8mIIg50ibxsCBKB9iWSvKyh3EVIOUn5ZV aEug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683119241; x=1685711241; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dsCaF2LwN78nuva2NNceRAHPJWXquXl+fNHZajVsyDM=; b=CkHx2ONKZ7CETvp90j8/en89KG/dtiuX8x6jMv+2itrod+CqLc4kwUQYaqZWcz/0mD Pa7XiiYGP5ZTzM/23ZEAld0J2d3lniQRrl1JRzlQpMkr+IuX1tOxvDMQxDWnH9y2osQX 1hTd4fgMN69aaUO4BRhCs3y0r5ogk7yfdcGkukeb1LMJwDU2djJwBD5BbCDXSkiJdrOV MaclKsov0f7gHCOZJj0Gu4yNGLbX0AxDxSglgPWvvCjAfScp/3HTgH9tFrIHYbIdE3iN K5AIyB4FJFvKdwHVcujjDBJyVXUShkq1G35BI8nmBAa6ZLGccQB8tlSgfgC7EvOzBnqm acfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzmjhfiJICRJuaAD6JV+6yOF2UVaRo6RTouaSUVNHAurohJsNtn jh2vNu7am+vKawrUQTlcueIwF9z5IF7qM+x/XsdVprjGmCpTjKdZ0i8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5BY/GAvwAwe2JlPPiwhDqNwOBGIFlm/VMIopRtQWgG8GQTT94b6i7Qqfxgt7Oq22sCOHmPS2KnfjAtsR3Q6Zs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:32c2:b0:42e:4383:783d with SMTP id o2-20020a05610232c200b0042e4383783dmr779954vss.3.1683119240402; Wed, 03 May 2023 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Douglas McIlroy Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 09:07:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID-Hash: GXM7D5EOEBMY6RHGCYIOI5W3PCL3STTJ X-Message-ID-Hash: GXM7D5EOEBMY6RHGCYIOI5W3PCL3STTJ X-MailFrom: douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Any reason the removal/renaming of read-only registers should be permitted? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: I think Clark was justified in deviating from Ossanna. The prime rationale for allowing removal of read-only registers is uniformity--a powerful argument. It simplifies documentation and relieves a burden on users' understanding. It probably simplifies the code, too. This kind of special-casing is AI in the service of some perception that "no one would want to do that.". If "that" is the clear meaning of some specified action, then so be it. We are not dealing with physical hazards here. > even if they don't screw up the formatter internally, > they will become unrecoverably useless for documents > and macro packages, The same argument could be made about \applying .rm to any standard request, and I would disagree for the same reason as above. (A disappointing experimental discovery in this regard: .de seems to be immune to removal.) A change that I *would* welcome is warning about writing into a read-only register. (Also make .rm work on .de--a near reversal of the original proposal.) Doug