> For the record, I am long time *BSD user so am quite > familiar with > t/csh and use it routinely.
I never assumed otherwise. Or assumed anything for that matter. > I still wouldn't recommend it, unless it > is default shell on the platform at hand. IRIX 6.5, anyone? > My shell of preference is ksh93, wh/I mentioned in my > first reply, but > was unsure if supported on OS, as not too long ago, > Solaris was way > lagging on updating ksh to ksh93. Looks like now has > been done. It's being worked on. > ksh93 is mature and POSIX compliant. Last I looked, > zsh had lots > of interesting features, but breaks POSIX many way. > Why, then, do you > nclude it in your preferred list? zsh has some advanced useability features, and can be highly customized and is very powerful. And most importantly, it's zsh. It doesn't pretend to be Bourne, like bash does. > Moreover, why include tcsh? It has *BSD roots, and to my knowledge, not much > historical use on Solaris. Because tcsh is very powerful and highly customizable as an interactive shell. For portable scripting, there's always ksh. As for "not much historical use on Solaris", my very first contact with tcsh was on Solaris 2.5.1, back in 1994. > Not interested in a religious war. Me either. Hence the note on the tcsh manual. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
