Steven W. Orr writes:
> Bash is 100% ksh compliant.
It seems to be very close, but I don't think that "100%" is correct.
For example, I have yet to see a bash that comes with "whence" (by
default).
(Hey, all of you sh/ksh/bash users out there: stop using "which" -- it
probably doesn't do what you think it does).
Last time I checked, bash didn't do coprocess yet either.
> And ksh is a superset of sh. Bash provides
> some of the better csh features like >&,
I'd rather have working redirection rather than this feeble sop.
> history.
Yes, typing !grep is nicer than "r grep".
> I could be wrong, but I
> believe that bash has no extensions at all compared to ksh.
In my opinion bash is nicer for interactive use than ksh. For
example, I regularly run into ksh's "input line length too long"
constraint. With bash I have no such problem. And working with
history/long lines is a pleasure to deal with in bash -- in ksh this
is painful.
Of course, if the problem is even moderately complicated, I'd prefer
not to use a shell at all and instead use Perl.
Regards,
--kevin
--
Kevin D. Clark | | Will hack Perl for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [email protected] | fine food, good beer,
Enterasys Networks | PGP Key Available | or fun.
Durham, N.H. (USA) | |
**********************************************************
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
**********************************************************
