18 Apr
2017
18 Apr
'17
8:48 p.m.
I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I found that its
Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
Datum point: 2.9BSD's kernel can recognise #!, but the sh can't recognise #.
Cheers, Warren
18 Apr
18 Apr
8:51 p.m.
I believe the Berkeley #! magic number came first. The C Shell already
used this as a comment, the Bourne shells grudgingly followed.
I still remember using : for a comment in the V6 shell. Was also the label
for goto.
10:16 p.m.
Yep, served both purposes.
-----Original Message-----
From: TUHS [mailto:tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:46 PM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Bourne shell and comments
On 04/18/2017 02:51 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Was also the label for goto.
Does that mean that the (so called) comment was really an (unused) label?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10:40 p.m.
On 2017-04-18 6:16 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Yep, served both purposes.
Hacker parsimony!
-----Original Message-----
From: TUHS [mailto:tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:46 PM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Bourne shell and comments
On 04/18/2017 02:51 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Was also the label for goto.
Does that mean that the (so called) comment was really an (unused) label?
19 Apr
19 Apr
6:36 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:45:36 -0600, Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:
On 04/18/2017 02:51 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Not Unix, but on DOS (on PCs) this was a common trick — it was especially
appreciated because : as a comment prefix (often doubled, so it couldn’t be
mistaken for a goto label) was faster to process than the official REM (which
was a command which had to be executed).
Regards,
Stephen
Was also the label for goto.
Does that mean that the (so called) comment was really an (unused) label? 
8:35 p.m.
This is all very interesting. Back when I was in high school, I
exploited a daemon on the PDP-10 we used. MIC. It allowed you to
basically run a "shell script" using a PTY as yourself, and it would
generate a log, and you could peruse it at your leisure. The exploit had
to do with the fact that PTYs had special privileges because of some
custom security alterations the consulting firm made to TOPS-10.
After the consulting firm got wind of what I did, they asked me to write
a replacement that was more secure. While the original MIC had a lot of
functionality in it, including labels like GOTHERE: (not the trailing
colon), and it was used to compile the monitor (TOPS-10), they just
needed something quick-and-dirty that students could use that wouldn't
open up a security hole. I basically just forced the script into the
terminals input buffer and let the monitor execute it line-by-line,
instead of using a PTY.
So while I was creating this new MIC, I figured why not put the colon at
the beginning of the line, it was easier to find on-the-fly.
Imagine my surprise when I got into DOS a year or two later and they
used leading colons for labels in batch files.
Not having any access whatsoever to any flavor of UNIX at the time, this
is the first I've heard that leading colons were used for labels outside
of DOS and my MIC-lite :)
On 4/19/2017 2:36 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:45:36 -0600, Grant Taylor
<gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:
On 04/18/2017 02:51 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
Not Unix, but on
DOS (on PCs) this was a common trick — it was especially
appreciated because : as a comment prefix (often doubled, so it couldn’t be
mistaken for a goto label) was faster to process than the official REM (which
was a command which had to be executed).
Regards,
Stephen
Was also the label for goto.
Does that
mean that the (so called) comment was really an (unused) label? 
12:50 a.m.
Ron said:
I still remember using : for a comment in the V6
shell. Was also the label
for goto.
What's cool about ':' vs. '#' is:
-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----
function cd {
command cd "$@" && setprompt
}
function setprompt {
PS1=": "`id -un`@`hostname|sed 's;\..*$;;'`:'${PWD};
'; export PS1
}
setprompt
-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----
Stick that in your .env and you get a snarf-and-barf'able shell prompt that evals as
a noop. Blatantly ripped off from plan9port IIRC. I run this across all manner of *BSD
and Solaris and Linux and it just works.
--lyndon
8:35 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:50:05PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
I don't want to get into an argument in an off-topic sub-thread, but PS1
doesn't need to be exported, and since the shell evaluates the string,
you may as well use
LOGNAME=$(id -un) # should already be set
HOSTNAME=$(hostname -s) # -s is fairly portable (not on Solaris tho)
PS1=': $LOGNAME@$HOSTNAME: $PWD; '
This saves having to execute id and hostname on every new prompt.
Also note that this has nothing to do with the : command.
Cheers
Ron said:
I still remember using : for a comment in the V6
shell. Was also the label
for goto.
What's cool about ':' vs. '#' is:
-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----
function cd {
command cd "$@" && setprompt
}
function setprompt {
PS1=": "`id -un`@`hostname|sed 's;\..*$;;'`:'${PWD};
'; export PS1
}
setprompt
-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<-----
Stick that in your .env and you get a snarf-and-barf'able shell prompt that evals as
a noop. Blatantly ripped off from plan9port IIRC. I run this across all manner of *BSD
and Solaris and Linux and it just works.
--lyndon
4:31 p.m.
On 04/18/2017 06:50 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
What's cool about ':' vs. '#'
is:
...
Stick that in your .env and you get a
snarf-and-barf'able shell
prompt that evals as a noop. Blatantly ripped off from plan9port
IIRC. I run this across all manner of *BSD and Solaris and Linux and
it just works.
I think you're effectively doing the same thing that I'm doing by having
my prompt start with '#', thus turning copy & paste ""errors into
pasting comments. Just a difference of a '#' comment character and a
':' label.
I see little difference between ':' and '#' in this case.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:59 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:31:53AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 04/18/2017 06:50 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Ah, thanks for explaining "snarf-and-barf"... I did a fast forward at
that point. Sorry Lyndon...
Is this a reason why "#" was chosen as the root prompt, by the way?
POSIX mentions that "a sufficiently powerful user should be reminded of
that power by having an alternate prompt" but says little else...
What's cool about ':' vs.
'#' is:
...
Stick that in your .env and you get a
snarf-and-barf'able shell
prompt that evals as a noop. Blatantly ripped off from plan9port
IIRC. I run this across all manner of *BSD and Solaris and Linux and
it just works.
I think you're effectively doing the same thing that I'm doing by having my
prompt start with '#', thus turning copy & paste ""errors into
pasting
comments. Just a difference of a '#' comment character and a ':'
label.
I see little difference between ':' and '#' in this case.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
5:36 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:31:53 MDT Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
I think you're effectively doing the same thing
that I'm doing by having
my prompt start with '#', thus turning copy & paste ""errors
into
pasting comments. Just a difference of a '#' comment character and a
':' label.
I see little difference between ':' and '#' in this case.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong.
To see the difference try this:
# echo one; echo two
: echo one; echo two
You can select the whole line starting with : and have the
command re-excute. This is more useful in rc since it doesn't
store history or have ^n/^p etc bound to scrolling through
history.
5:59 p.m.
On 04/19/2017 11:36 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
To see the difference try this:
# echo one; echo two
: echo one; echo two
*nod*
You can select the whole line starting with : and have
the
command re-excute.
Ah. That's contrary to why I use '#'.
I specifically want the command line to not be re-executed.
I purposefully select the portion of the command line that I want,
paste, and execute.
This is more useful in rc since it doesn't
store history or have ^n/^p etc bound to scrolling through
history.
This makes perfect sense in the use case you describe.
Thank you for the explanation.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
20 Apr
20 Apr
8:13 p.m.
below...
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Ron Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
I believe the Berkeley #! magic number came first.
That's right.... the #!path syntax was BSDism that went main stream
because of its usefulness with "little languages" not just the shell.
I'd have to check the tapes but it may have gone back as far as the
original BSD ~77/78 - Ken would have brought it back after his sabbatical
(or not - he would have seen it).
The # was nod to the # being the first characters of the C program to say
to use the preprocessor; but I've forgotten why the bang was added before
the path. It could have been almost anything.
But the #!path syntax really was a great idea and opened up a lot of
different pseudo built-in scripting languages we think go with UNIX today.
But back in the day, their were not that many to start.
The C Shell already
used this as a comment,
exactly.
the Bourne shells grudgingly followed.
Yep - although, like Warren I don't remember how soon. The thing was you
programmed to V7 [Bourne] syntax and typed to C shell [I still do - the
rom's in the my fingers are not erasable]. I do remember commenting
Bourne scripts, so it must have come early in the Vax line, although its
strange the 2.x did not pick it up, until it seems 2.11 which is pretty
late.
I still remember using : for a comment in the V6 shell. Was also the
label
for goto.
Yep - I remember that also - it worked...
8:17 p.m.
On 4/20/17 4:13 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
the Bourne shells grudgingly followed.
Yep - although, like Warren I don't remember how soon.
System III
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet(a)case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
21 Apr
21 Apr
3:28 a.m.
Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
below...
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Ron Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
I thought it was pretty well established that DMR invented it and
told the UCB guys about it? There's an email in the archives from
him, too.
Dr. McIlroy? Can you clarify?
I believe the Berkeley #! magic number came
first.
That's right.... the #!path syntax was BSDism that went main stream
because of its usefulness with "little languages" not just the shell.
I'd have to check the tapes but it may have gone back as far as the
original BSD ~77/78 - Ken would have brought it back after his sabbatical
(or not - he would have seen it). The # was nod to the # being the first characters of
the C program to say
to use the preprocessor; but I've forgotten why the bang was added before
the path. It could have been almost anything.
Perhaps reminiscent of the '!' escape to shell in ed and maybe
some other interactive programs of the time? That's purely a guess
on my part.
My two cents,
Arnold
3:43 a.m.
From the horse’s mouth (as per
https://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/documents/dennis-ritchie-and-hash-bang.s… ):
From: "Ritchie, Dennis M (Dennis)** CTR **" <dmr(a)research.bell-labs.com>
To: <erlĸonigⓐtαlismαn.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:37:37 -0600
Subject: RE: What do -you- call your #!<something> line?
I can't recall that we ever gave it a proper name.
It was pretty late that it went in--I think that I
got the idea from someone at one of the UCB conferences
on Berkeley Unix; I may have been one of the first to
actually install it, but it was an idea that I got
from elsewhere.
As for the name: probably something descriptive like
"hash-bang" though this has a specifically British flavor, but
in any event I don't recall particularly using a pet name
for the construction.
Regards,
Dennis
[Sorry about the html]
On Apr 20, 2017, at 8:28 PM, arnold(a)skeeve.com wrote:
Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
below...
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Ron Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
I thought it was pretty well established that DMR invented it and
told the UCB guys about it? There's an email in the archives from
him, too.
Dr. McIlroy? Can you clarify?
I believe the Berkeley #! magic number came
first.
That's right.... the #!path syntax was BSDism that went main stream
because of its usefulness with "little languages" not just the shell.
I'd have to check the tapes but it may have gone back as far as the
original BSD ~77/78 - Ken would have brought it back after his sabbatical
(or not - he would have seen it). The # was nod to the # being the first characters
of the C program to say
to use the preprocessor; but I've forgotten why the bang was added before
the path. It could have been almost anything.
Perhaps reminiscent of the '!' escape to shell in ed and maybe
some other interactive programs of the time? That's purely a guess
on my part.
My two cents,
Arnold 
6:07 a.m.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Bakul Shah wrote:
From the horse’s mouth (as per
https://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/documents/dennis-ritchie-and-hash-bang.s… ):
From: "Ritchie, Dennis M (Dennis)** CTR **" <dmr(a)research.bell-labs.com>
To: <erlĸonigⓐtαlismαn.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:37:37 -0600
Subject: RE: What do -you- call your #!<something> line?
I can't recall that we ever gave it a proper name.
It was pretty late that it went in--I think that I
got the idea from someone at one of the UCB conferences
on Berkeley Unix; I may have been one of the first to
actually install it, but it was an idea that I got
from elsewhere.
As for the name: probably something descriptive like
"hash-bang" though this has a specifically British flavor, but
in any event I don't recall particularly using a pet name
for the construction.
Regards,
Dennis
[Sorry about the html]
In the process of replying, I've de-htmlized it. ;)
Anyway, I use "pound-bang" which is basically the same thing, although I
must say it has a particular violent quality about it...
-uso.
11:18 a.m.
It is quite possible. But I think it might have been the other way around that Dennis got
the idea from elsewhere.
Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite.
On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:28 PM, arnold(a)skeeve.com
wrote:
I thought it was pretty well established that DMR invented it and
told the UCB guys about it? There's an email in the archives from
him, too.
1:20 p.m.
On 20 Apr 2017 21:28 -0600, from arnold(a)skeeve.com:
How about that # could start a C preprocessor directive, but no C
preprocessor directives begins with `!'? Makes it easy for the C
compiler or preprocessor to check that it isn't being fed a random
script.
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“People who think they know everything really annoy
those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup)
The # was nod
to the # being the first characters of the C program to say
to use the preprocessor; but I've forgotten why the bang was added before
the path. It could have been almost anything.
Perhaps reminiscent of the '!' escape to shell in ed and maybe
some other interactive programs of the time? That's purely a guess
on my part.
18 Apr
18 Apr
8:56 p.m.
On 4/18/17 4:48 PM, Warren Toomey wrote:
I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I
found that its
Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
The Bourne shell got `#' comments in System III. csh had them very
early. I'm pretty sure Dennis Ritchie suggested the `#!' syntax before
they were added to the System III sh, but not much earlier.
ISTR that the Berkeley Pascal system had something like `#!' first.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet(a)case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
19 Apr
19 Apr
9:02 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:48:34AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I
found that its
Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
Datum point: 2.9BSD's kernel can recognise #!, but the sh can't recognise #.
Dennis' email about #! to Berkeley is dated Jan 10 '80.
I've never seen any hint, how the bang in #! was chosen. Looks racy at least..
#! on BSDs was available as compile time option in 4.0BSD (~Oct '80?)
and default on 4.2BSD (~Sep '83).
BTW, AFAIK, the #! implementation in 2.8BSD (compile time option) is not
from research but seems to come from U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
The BSD csh hack in sh&csh (# special as first character in a file, service.c),
came with 3BSD, also in '80.
I found # as comment character in the BSD-sh first in CSRG 4.1.snap
(~Apr '81, word.c). And at Bell Labs, as mentioned, it came with SysIII, also ~81.
BTW, 4.3BSD ('86), and thus 2.10 BSD, brought an interesting change:
# is only recognized in non-interactive mode. In interactive mode
you actually get this:
$ # echo x
#: not found
This was not changed in 4BSD until sh was replaced by ash in 4.3 Net/2.
Sven
--
https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/
https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/
10:07 p.m.
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
|On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:48:34AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
|> I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I found that its
|> Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
|>
|> So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
|> indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
|> kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
|> arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
|>
|> Datum point: 2.9BSD's kernel can recognise #!, but the sh can't recognise
\
|> #.
|
|Dennis' email about #! to Berkeley is dated Jan 10 '80.
|I've never seen any hint, how the bang in #! was chosen. Looks racy \
|at least..
|#! on BSDs was available as compile time option in 4.0BSD (~Oct '80?)
|and default on 4.2BSD (~Sep '83).
|BTW, AFAIK, the #! implementation in 2.8BSD (compile time option) is not
|from research but seems to come from U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
|
|The BSD csh hack in sh&csh (# special as first character in a file, \
|service.c),
|came with 3BSD, also in '80.
|
|I found # as comment character in the BSD-sh first in CSRG 4.1.snap
|(~Apr '81, word.c). And at Bell Labs, as mentioned, it came with SysIII, \
|also ~81.
|BTW, 4.3BSD ('86), and thus 2.10 BSD, brought an interesting change:
|# is only recognized in non-interactive mode. In interactive mode
|you actually get this:
| $ # echo x
| #: not found
|This was not changed in 4BSD until sh was replaced by ash in 4.3 Net/2.
Hmm. Kurt Shoens added # as a null() saying "The do nothing
command for comments." before that (2BSD, file copyright 1979).
--steffen
20 Apr
20 Apr
12:31 a.m.
This is a bit old (hope someone has archived it incase the account is ever
deleted) but this is the shebang history reference I've ref'd a few times
(comes right after the Wikipedia hits when searching for "shebang history"
in Google - for me anyway).
https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/
It'd be interesting to hear if the group finds any inaccuracies or knows of
anything more thorough on the topic.
On Apr 19, 2017 6:05 PM, "Steffen Nurpmeso" <steffen(a)sdaoden.eu> wrote:
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
|On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:48:34AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
|> I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I found that its
|> Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
|>
|> So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
|> indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
|> kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
|> arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
|>
|> Datum point: 2.9BSD's kernel can recognise #!, but the sh can't
recognise \
|> #.
|
|Dennis' email about #! to Berkeley is dated Jan 10 '80.
|I've never seen any hint, how the bang in #! was chosen. Looks racy \
|at least..
|#! on BSDs was available as compile time option in 4.0BSD (~Oct '80?)
|and default on 4.2BSD (~Sep '83).
|BTW, AFAIK, the #! implementation in 2.8BSD (compile time option) is not
|from research but seems to come from U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
|
|The BSD csh hack in sh&csh (# special as first character in a file, \
|service.c),
|came with 3BSD, also in '80.
|
|I found # as comment character in the BSD-sh first in CSRG 4.1.snap
|(~Apr '81, word.c). And at Bell Labs, as mentioned, it came with SysIII,
\
|also ~81.
|BTW, 4.3BSD ('86), and thus 2.10 BSD, brought an interesting change:
|# is only recognized in non-interactive mode. In interactive mode
|you actually get this:
| $ # echo x
| #: not found
|This was not changed in 4BSD until sh was replaced by ash in 4.3 Net/2.
Hmm. Kurt Shoens added # as a null() saying "The do nothing
command for comments." before that (2BSD, file copyright 1979).
--steffen
12:35 a.m.
Heh apparently I missed Sven's links below his name... Well, nice writeup
:)
On Apr 19, 2017 8:31 PM, "shawn wilson" <ag4ve.us(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is a bit old (hope someone has archived it incase the account is ever
deleted) but this is the shebang history reference I've ref'd a few times
(comes right after the Wikipedia hits when searching for "shebang history"
in Google - for me anyway).
https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/
It'd be interesting to hear if the group finds any inaccuracies or knows of
anything more thorough on the topic.
On Apr 19, 2017 6:05 PM, "Steffen Nurpmeso" <steffen(a)sdaoden.eu> wrote:
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
|On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:48:34AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
|> I was trying to configure C news on 2.9BSD today and I found that its
|> Bourne shell doesn't grok # comments. The Bourne shell in 2.11BSD does.
|>
|> So I thought: when did the Bourne (and other) shells first grok # as
|> indicating a comment? Was this in response to #! being added to the
|> kernel, or was it the other way around? And was the choice of #!
|> arbitrary, or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
|>
|> Datum point: 2.9BSD's kernel can recognise #!, but the sh can't
recognise \
|> #.
|
|Dennis' email about #! to Berkeley is dated Jan 10 '80.
|I've never seen any hint, how the bang in #! was chosen. Looks racy \
|at least..
|#! on BSDs was available as compile time option in 4.0BSD (~Oct '80?)
|and default on 4.2BSD (~Sep '83).
|BTW, AFAIK, the #! implementation in 2.8BSD (compile time option) is not
|from research but seems to come from U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
|
|The BSD csh hack in sh&csh (# special as first character in a file, \
|service.c),
|came with 3BSD, also in '80.
|
|I found # as comment character in the BSD-sh first in CSRG 4.1.snap
|(~Apr '81, word.c). And at Bell Labs, as mentioned, it came with SysIII,
\
|also ~81.
|BTW, 4.3BSD ('86), and thus 2.10 BSD, brought an interesting change:
|# is only recognized in non-interactive mode. In interactive mode
|you actually get this:
| $ # echo x
| #: not found
|This was not changed in 4BSD until sh was replaced by ash in 4.3 Net/2.
Hmm. Kurt Shoens added # as a null() saying "The do nothing
command for comments." before that (2BSD, file copyright 1979).
--steffen
3:50 a.m.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Heh apparently I missed Sven's links below his
name... Well, nice writeup
:)
Yes indeed. So while we are at it can we settle down once and for all why
and when the term "shebang" originated? Is it derived from "shell
bang",
or "sharp bang"?
--Andy
4:47 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That would be too neat... And these things get harder with time...
Warner
Heh apparently I missed Sven's links below his name... Well, nice writeup
:)
Yes indeed. So while we are at it can we settle down once and for all why
and when the term "shebang" originated? Is it derived from "shell
bang", or
"sharp bang"? 
21 Apr
21 Apr
1:42 a.m.
On 20 April 2017 at 00:47, Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
Yes, it would be nice to know the origin of the whole shebang.
N.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Andy Kosela
<akosela(a)andykosela.com> wrote:
[...]
Yes indeed.
So while we are at it can we settle down once and for all why
and when the term "shebang" originated? Is it derived from "shell
bang", or
"sharp bang"?
That would be too neat... And these things get harder with time...
10:54 a.m.
Shebang is very old. Earliest uses are around 1862 according to the OED. It's
listed as American Slang of obscure origin.
2:22 p.m.
On Friday, April 21, 2017, Ron Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ron@ronnatalie.com');>> wrote:
Shebang is very old. Earliest uses are around 1862
according to the
OED. It's listed as American Slang of obscure origin.
Most of us are probably familiar with the word, but it is more interesting
when and why it was first used in the context of '#!'. It seems Dennis did
not use that term in the beginning.
--Andy
2:45 p.m.
Amusingly, people were asking this question in 2000. I found this in comp.unix.shell:
in news: at.linux, there's a discussion about why the
interpretersymbol #! is called shebang (you can imagine, which
theories already occurred). but does anybody know, WHY this is really
called shebang?
sorry for being a bit offtopic, but it's essential :)
thanks before.
Stefan
No origins were found in the messages other than a guess that it was a cute shortening of
“SHARP BANG.”
Wasn’t it Ken Thompson who said if he had it to do over again he’d have put an “e” on the
end of create. Five decades of calling it “CREE – AT”
22 Apr
22 Apr
2:46 a.m.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Andy Kosela wrote:
Heh apparently I missed Sven's links below
his name... Well, nice
writeup :)
Yes indeed. So while we are at it can we settle down once and for all
why and when the term "shebang" originated? Is it derived from "shell
bang", or "sharp bang"?
Well, just to stir the possum a little, I've always called it "hash bang".
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
20 Apr
20 Apr
4:39 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:07:28AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Hmm. Kurt Shoens added # as a null() saying "The
do nothing
command for comments." before that (2BSD, file copyright 1979).
Is it possible that you were looking at 2BSD/src/Mail/cmd3.c?
2BSD is an add-on for V6, without any Bourne shell.
9:42 p.m.
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
|On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:07:28AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> Hmm. Kurt Shoens added # as a null() saying "The do nothing
|> command for comments." before that (2BSD, file copyright 1979).
|
|Is it possible that you were looking at 2BSD/src/Mail/cmd3.c?
|2BSD is an add-on for V6, without any Bourne shell.
Oh yes, sorry. Mail that is. (And lead there from cmdtab.c.)
--steffen
2563
days inactive
2567
days old
33 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri -
Andy Kosela -
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Arthur Krewat -
Bakul Shah -
Chet Ramey -
Clem Cole -
Clem cole
-
Dave Horsfall -
Grant Taylor -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Michael Kjörling -
Nemo -
Ron Natalie -
shawn wilson -
Steffen Nurpmeso -
Stephen Kitt -
Steve Nickolas -
Sven Mascheck -
Toby Thain -
Warner Losh -
Warren Toomey