>> This makes me wonder whether maybe we should switch all shell >> scripting in Nixpkgs to "csh"? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems? >> I've heard experts say that "csh" is generally considered superior >> for scripting tasks because of its more intuitive syntax. > > I really dislike csh's syntax, and that of tcsh, and having to learn > it in order to write scripts for Nix would be undesirable to say the > least.
What you are saying is basically: Switching away from Bash is not the proper solution. The proper solution is not to assume a certain shell at all and let the builder itself choose it. And I agree. This would be easy to support by stdenv. Basically all we need is to make $stdenv/setup portable (i.e. parametric). Also I agree that Guix is in a number of ways superior. My only problem with Guix is Scheme, because I have some language-design issues with it. Greets, Ertugrul
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
