I've said it before, but I'll say it again: "Hold on there
Bullwinkle!" :-)
Bash is 100% ksh compliant. And ksh is a superset of sh. Bash provides
some of the better csh features like >&, history. I could be wrong, but I
believe that bash has no extensions at all compared to ksh. There might be
a few features that have to be enabled but those features are all ksh
subset.
--
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this. Steven W. Orr-
Does your driver's license say Organ Donor?Black holes are where God \
-------divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all individuals!---------
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote:
=>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=>> See Also: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot.
=>>
=>> Anyone writing csh scripts for production use should be dismissed.
=>
=> I wouldn't go *that* far, but they certainly need a stern talking too.
=>
=> (Some of the newer versions of tcsh are at least pretty stable and bug-free,
=>but they still have the design limitations of the csh, and are effectively
=>non-portable (most Unixes don't have working tcsh versions)).
=>
=> If it wasn't for the limitations and portability concerns about tcsh, I
=>would prolly use it as my login shell. /bin/sh is much more powerful, but the
=>syntax is certainly... interesting. (Of course, bash's extensions, which I
=>make liberal use of, aren't exactly "portable", either.)
=>
=>
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
