Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> I'm sure you've already heard it, but I have to say it: >> You shouldn't use csh-based shells. >> If you ask anyone or google, you'll find many good reasons. >> Lack of a decent signal-handling mechanism is one of them. > > Usually when I hear this, it's in reference to shell scripting, and not > interactive shell use. The famous "Csh Considered Harmful" article, for > instance, is explicitly in the context of shell scripts, and not > interactive use.
Well, some people are known to program on the command line, and when I do that, I want to have an adequate language at my fingertips. Similarly, we all do some amount of programming in our shell-startup scripts, and should be able to expect them to work well, too. I too started off thinking tcsh was great, but switched to bash about the time CCH was written, and later to zsh. I haven't looked back. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
