> The only time it ever made any sense at all to use csh for scripts > was in the brief period between [when csh appeared] and [when sh > appeared].
Speaking as someone whose preferred interactive shell is a csh derivative, I maintain exactly two csh-family scripts: my .cshrc and my .login. Except for those two (which kinda have to be csh(ish) scripts), I use sh for scripting. At least for my values of "better", sh is a significantly better _programming_ language, for all that csh has various things that make it a better _interactive_ language. I won't weigh in on either side of "replace csh with tcsh". I don't like tcsh much, but the reasons amount to "it's not what my fingers are used to"; I like stock csh even less, because it differs even more from what my fingers are used to. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
