In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>Meanwhile, it might be worthwhile to reconsider the use
>of ksh here, if you have any choice in the matter. Ksh
>is fine for interactive use, but has some unfortunate
>flaws as a programming shell, and due to proprietary issues
>one commonly encounters an alternative implementation that's
>even worse. On most modern platforms, sh will have a pretty
>good programming feature set, and will be more reliable
>(especially if it isn't just ksh by another name.)
.
.
.
Infidel. While I sure feel that way about csh(1), it
surprises me you'd criticize ksh(1) so. 'Fact, 'mong
all the *sh-s, I *recommend* ksh for programming. May-
be the two of us see things differently.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
