On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:09:21PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> >> >> >> the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code >> > >> > Good for him. >> >> let's pretend you know better by addressing your stupid responses > > Why are you such a troll?
the only trolling itt has been perpetuated by you early on by being randomly argumentative against thorsten without knowing the slightest about the topic > > >> >> >> >> the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing >> >> their efforts on something solid >> > >> > I take it "wonky" is some technical term with which I am not familiar. >> >> % if (0) echo > file >> % ls >> file >> >> but of course, this is old as hell and was already linked by someone >> else in this thread >> >> ie, you're dodging problems > > I didn't dodge a problem. I ignored something largely irrelevant to > interactive use that *you* didn't bring up, anyway. > > Is that your only complaint about it being "wonky"? % if ($?asd && $asd == str) echo true (let's quote every line that was linked before) > > >> >> >> >> *you* are the one that's dodging questions >> > >> > Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not >> > completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. > > Good job. Usually, you'd be more effective pretending I didn't call you > on something if you did not requote it. > > >> >> >> >> history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh >> >> thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time >> > >> > What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. >> >> then what other feature in tcsh would leverage against modern shells? >> why do i have to ask you this given that the query was implied a long >> time ago by more than one person? > > Why do you think "more features" automatically equals "better"? actually, i've been consistently argueing against the opposite hence my calling out of redundant builtins reading comprehension 101 > > >> >> >> >> every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition >> >> like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) >> > >> > I guess that depends on how you define "feature" -- but I don't use csh >> > without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable >> > to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. >> >> actually, it does apply because ls-F is a tcsh builtin, not csh > > No, it doesn't apply, because the "barring" clause is not the primary > clause of that statement. The primary clause, and the point to which I > responded, was "every feature in csh is present in other shells". again sidestepping that you didn't know that ls-F was a tcsh builtin and claimed the opposite you are a boring, because you don't know what you're talking about and don't admit it i see that the trend continues throughout the rest of this mail... > > >> >> do you even know the slightest thing about the shell you use? > > Have you already forgotten what you, yourself, said -- even when you > quoted it back to me? You said more than "ls-F". I responded to that > "more". I left the "ls-F" clause in there to preserve some context for > you. > > >> >> this information isn't exactly hidden, on the contrary, it's right >> there in the manual >> >> and before you even think about it, yes using both interchangeably is >> correct because in freebsd, csh is a link to tcsh > > That doesn't make using the terms interchangeably "correct". It just > makes it lazy. If I execute a shell with "csh" it behaves differently > than if I execute it with "tcsh", which is relevant to discussions of > features it provides for interactive use. > > >> > >> > Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. >> >> in a unix context, more features, specially those that overlap, are >> regarded as unwanted. no, i'm not going to explain orthogonality and >> its benefits to you -- it should be basic knowledge by now > > My statement that feature counts are not measures of quality was in > reference to your brilliant statement above that csh is not as good as > other shells because they have all the (useful) features of csh, but > more. I just questioned the value of "but more" in your implied > argument. > > Thank you for reinforcing my argument for me. > > >> > >> > I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. "They both have >> > instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that >> > already exists in standard utilities." Well, great. I'm not sure how >> > that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. >> >> since i pointed out more than feature overlap, this is a weak strawman > > It's not a straw man. It's a direct response to something *you* said. > If you want to concede this point, feel free -- but don't claim that the > fact you concede this point is proof that I'm not arguing "fairly" > somehow. > > >> >> >> >> it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this >> >> seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, >> >> like most of the people on this thread >> > >> > I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you >> > say things like this. >> >> what i can point out is that responding to each sentence out of context >> is very annoying. if ls-F being over-optimization recieves a "maybe so" >> qualification, then this is clearly a contradiction > > I'm responding to each point as a point. What am I supposed to do > instead -- just take your approach, never address any specifics, and > declare myself the winner? No thanks, I don't want to descend to your > level of ineptitude at communicating with human beings. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > _______________________________________________ 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"
