Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!cepu!scw@ucla-locus
From: scw@ucla-locus@cepu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: "$@ in shell"
Message-ID: <4495@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Aug-83 10:22:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.4495
Posted: Wed Aug 24 10:22:00 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Aug-83 17:45:39 EDT
Lines: 29

From:  Steve Woods <cepu!scw@ucla-locus>


    In-Reply-To: clyde.105

    Previous articles have requested that no changes be made to sh since
    .
    .
    .
    Unix waters flowing.


I would much rather see a (semi)stagnant UNIX* that to have programs
suddenly break. There is a mechanism in UNIX to allow different shells;
if it is that important to someone to have $@ include "" args then haque
up sh and call it atsh or some such and make it be said users login shell.
Or vice versa (call sh osh).
*Flame on*
Contrary to popular belief IBM 370's, FORTRAN ,and COBOL are *NOT*
obsolete, rather they are still viable useful products with many years
of life ahead of them (30XXen and 43XXen are still 370 flavored machines).
Some people (poor benighted heathen) actually prefer to write COBOL,
and as everyone knows REAL PROGRAMMERS always write FORTRAN.
**FLAME DOUBLE**
One of the ***BIG*** problems with some operating systems is the regular
flow of new, often incompatable, and usually buggy releases.
*Flame off*

*UNIX iatoBL