On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:33:51 +0200
Jens Staal wrote:
> 2011/9/25 Ethan Grammatikidis :
> > On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
> > Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> ...
> > There are only two implementations of rc that I know of, and one is
> > brain-damaged and best ignored. I've found i
2011/9/25 Ethan Grammatikidis :
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
> Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
...
> There are only two implementations of rc that I know of, and one is
> brain-damaged and best ignored. I've found it a remarkably elegant
> language, although it is possible an even
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> because it is missing mass adoption
once you start using this as an excuse, you are stuck with bash forever
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Comments and ideas for an sh alternative, which sucks less, are
> welcome.
I forgot to mention that I often think something about the shell could
be smoother but I can never put my finger on what.
Also this:
11:52:05
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> All we need is a better syntax for sh,
> This
> should be doable in the size of dash. Rc does not fit very well,
> because it is missing mass adoption and has some ugliness in the
> various implementations across Plan 9
Greetings,
Patrick Haller wrote:
> On 2011-09-25 03:19, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> ocaml;wu (ocaml; won't use)
>
> use the bringer_obsolete.bash [1] from the package?
>
> why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?
in the first ecumenical council of the suckless church, C and sh
we
