On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Brederlow wrote: > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think this section should be removed from policy. This document > > contains some (very arguable) reasons why new scripts should not be written > > in csh, but absolutely no reasons why upstream csh scripts should not be > > used. > > Also, the document points out a lack of features in csh. If you don't need > > those features, it's just as good as bash. > > If you don't need those features and you don't need any csh specific > stuff, the script will run on bash as well, so why not use /bin/sh? Its > loaded into memory already. > > Also isn't it policy to write scripts for a posix shell when possible? > Special bash features should be avoided.
Maintainer scripts should be written in posix or bash; no argument there. However, upstream should be free to use whatever scripting language it wants. > The policy is there so that scripts can be understood. Somebody only Then why are perl scripts allowed? :-) You can easily write some truely obfuscated perl scripts, but there's nothing in policy against them. The csh syntax is quite obvious if you need to make some minor bug fixes to an existing script. > PS: One just doesn't write scripts in csh. :) I don't use csh for scripting myself; I use /bin/sh (although I do use tcsh for my interactive shell). But policy should allow it (except perhaps for maintainer scripts). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
