On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer <rfar...@predatorlabs.net> wrote:
> (New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive
> tcsh, so it is a good idea to be compatible when posting stuff to the
> mailing lists, etc. if possible. There was something on the ports@
> list a while back, about PRs for new ports, where this came up.
That's why it is "a nice tradition" to indicate which
kind of shell a command should be issued to, for example
% set x = 100; foreach y ( .... ) >& boo_$x
which is for C shell (tcsh), versus
$ Q=1; W=2; [ ${Q} .... ] && meow `ls` < hi.there
which is for (ba)sh. It get's interesting when talking
about commands to be issued as root. :-)
# pwd
> I've read it before. Who hasn't?
I haven't. :-)
> And I find it unconvincing, since it
> is just a list of shortcomings. If those shortcomings don't affect me,
> why do I care?
The article basically concentrates on shell PROGRAMMING,
and I agree that programming scripts is not the biggest
stength of the C shell. On the other hand, it's a very
good interactive command line interpreter (as mentioned
before) that is, in some regards (mainly driven by very
individual taste), superior to the hyped bash. But it's
also worth mentioning that there are even better shells
which combine "the best of both worlds", like zsh, a shell
that many professionals seem to prefer over the other
ones mentioned.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
