Just a quick note about Algol vs. Algol 68: The two are used interchangeably (it seems) in this thread, but they're very different languages, with very different control structures. Someone mentioned he had studied Algol in school, which is plausible. If he in fact studied Algol 68, that's worth a story in its own right!

[Whoops... forgot to properly terminate that last sentence.]

fi

--Marc

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Steve Johnson <scj@yaccman.com> wrote:
I wasn't directly involved in this, but I do remember Dennis telling me essentially the same story.  I don't recall him mentioning Ken's name, just that "we couldn't use od because that was already taken".

Steve B and I had adjacent offices, so I overheard a lot of the discussions about the Bourne shell.  The quoting mechanisms, in particular, got a lot of attention, I think to good end.  There was a lot more thought there than is evident from the surface...

Steve (not Bourne)

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Norman Wilson" <norman@oclsc.org>

To:
<tuhs@tuhs.org>
Cc:

Sent:
Sun, 08 Jan 2017 21:30:03 -0500
Subject:
Re: [TUHS] Unix stories, Stephen Bourne and IF-FI in C code



Doug McIlroy:

There was some pushback which resulted in the strange compromise
of if-fi, case-esac, do-done. Alas, the details have slipped from
memory. Help, scj?

====

do-od would have required renaming the long-tenured od(1).

I remember a tale--possibly chat in the UNIX Room at one point in
the latter 1980s--that Steve tried and tried and tried to convince
Ken to rename od, in the name of symmetry and elegance. Ken simply
said no, as many times as it took. I don't remember who I heard this
from; anyone still in touch with Ken who can ask him?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON