On 04/03/10 10:10, David Frascone wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that seq should > have been implemented with bash instead of fish? Or bash instead of bc? > Or that we shouldn't use fish at all, but use bash instead? > > I know in the man pages of zsh they say that zsh is a command prompt and > strictly differentiate command prompts from scripting languages, citing > security isseus, code coverage, and collective knowledge as reasons for > leaving bash around for scripts. I do feel the same way about fish, but, > without understanding your point, I'm not sure if I've addressed your > comments.
eh, I was just ranting....Actually I am confused by why there isn't any "official" version of 'seq' for Mac OS X. I think one should exist. -Isaac ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
