AFAIK, NPROC is a env variable of mk. On Oct 17, 2017 13:08, "Giacomo Tesio" <giac...@tesio.it> wrote:
> Also, why NPROC has been left uppercase? :-) > > > Giacomo > > 2017-10-17 17:45 GMT+02:00 Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it>: > >> In *rc* you use quotation marks when you want a syntax character to >>> appear in an argument, or an argument that is the empty string, and at no >>> other time. IFS is no longer used, *except in the one case where it was >>> indispensable*: converting command output into argument lists during >>> command substitution. >> >> >> So, I undestood: it used to use IFS in that one case. >> >> I got it now: the fact that IFS was named ifs was not a relevant for the >> discourse, and thus omitted. >> >> Still I'm a bit surprised that such change in the conventions provides no >> practical advantage: the taste changes with age, but costs accumulate... :-) >> >> >> BTW, thanks for your answers! >> >> >> Giacomo >> >> >> 2017-10-17 17:18 GMT+02:00 Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com>: >> >>> since for example the original Rc paper still referred to $IFS. >>> >>> >>> really? the only references to IFS I can find are in comparisons of $ifs >>> to the Bourne shell's $IFS >>> >>> On 17 October 2017 at 16:05, Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: >>> >>>> Really? Just aesthetics? :-o >>>> I supposed it had some practical goal I was missing, since for example >>>> the original Rc paper still referred to $IFS. >>>> >>>> This would flips the question a bit: I wonder why the same designers >>>> chose uppercase variable names while designing Unix... :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Giacomo >>>> >>>> 2017-10-17 16:39 GMT+02:00 Dan Cross <cro...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Out of curiosity, do anybody know why Plan9 designers chose lowercase >>>>> > variables over uppercase ones? >>>>> > >>>>> > At first, given the different conventions between rc and sh (eg >>>>> $path is an >>>>> > array, while $PATH is a string), I supposed Plan 9 designers wanted >>>>> to >>>>> > prevent conflict with unix tools relying to the older conventions. >>>>> > >>>>> > However, I'm not sure this was the main reason, as this also open to >>>>> subtle >>>>> > issues: if a unix shell modifies $IFS and then invoke an rc script, >>>>> such >>>>> > script will ignore the change and keep using the previous $ifs. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > As far as I can see, APE does not attempt any translation between >>>>> the two >>>>> > conventions, so maybe I'm just missing something obvious... >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Do anyone know what considerations led to such design decision? >>>>> >>>>> Aesthetics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
