On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:47:10AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be > > > removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the > > > ports system. Other than historical reasons there is not much point in > > > having it in the base system. > > > > I strongly disagree. csh and sh should be 'pure' versions. That is to > > say, no matter what shell is actually being called as sh or csh, it > > should provide a 100% compatible version, no differences, no "upgrades". > > This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of > > Unix. > > What is a pure 'csh'?? Please answer in detail. Have you ever looked at > the source code for 4.3BSD 'csh'? What about 'tcsh' source code? Hint, > Christos Zoulas had at CSRG login and was maintaining and enhancing BSD > 'csh'. The 4.4BSD 'csh' was Zoulas's work. 'tcsh' is simply the > continued evolution of BSD 'csh'. > > So do you want the original Bill Joy 'csh' from 3BSD?? > Do you want the 'csh' that originally appeared in System 3 (or was it > V)?? Do you wan the 4.4BSD-Lite2 'csh' (ie, the last from CSRG)?? > THERE IS NO STANDARD 'csh'. POSIX doesn't even try to standardize it. > > 'csh' is an interactive shell, not a programming language. Anyone trying > to write "portable" scripts in 'csh' should know why "Csh Programming > Considered Harmful" http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
How dare you interject reason into this flamewar! -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
