Re: use of sugar

[arnold@cc.gatech.edu (Arnold Robbins)]

> > want to point out that <> "isn't just for sh compatibility anymore". It is
> > now part of the posix sh spec, and you're going to start seeing it on
> > your commercial unix systems from now on.
> 
> Not to be snide, but so what?

Cultural compatibility. (Which is what started this whole mess in the
first place.)  es *is* a unix shell, and the whole point of the sugar is
to make it a) easy to transition to es, b) easy to use (*I* don't want to
type %open all the time!)

> es should have absolutely no relationship to Posix and commercial systems.

Agreed here.  But all the potential *users* out there are used to sh/ksh/csh
and new unix users will be introduced to posix sh and its factilities as
the "standard" from now on. They'll learn about <> at the same time as they'll
learn about < and >.

> The rest of your soapbox is best taken as an argument for clean
> consistent design of the right set of features.  This appears to
> be the path that es is on.

Agreed here.

> I am sure Paul and Byron will do the right thing.

Agreed.  (Is the burden on your shoulders enough yet, guys? :-)

Arnold