Re: Backtick versus $()

Dear Sir/Madam, > Your email was unable reach the intended person that you were sending it to. > For more information on our business please click on the following link: > Click here for our website > We look forward to your continued business in the future. > Regar

Re: Backtick versus $()

> > Dear Sir/Madam, > Your email was unable reach the intended person that you were sending it to. > For more information on our business please click on the following link: > Click here for our website > We look forward to your continued business in the future. > R

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Rob Farmer predatorlabs.net> writes: > >> LOL - how hypocritical. This thread was four days dead then suddenly >> two people show up and start pushing this mksh shell, which seems to > > Sorry for reviving again, but I only show up as I ha

Re: Backtick versus $()

Rob Farmer predatorlabs.net> writes: > LOL - how hypocritical. This thread was four days dead then suddenly > two people show up and start pushing this mksh shell, which seems to Sorry for reviving again, but I only show up as I have an “alert” set to mksh to know when it’s being discussed alrea

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 25 February 2011 18:02, Andres Perera wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: I apologize for the grammaticall brokenness of that sentence. >>> >>> maybe you sh

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: >>> I apologize for the grammaticall brokenness of that sentence. >> >> maybe you should spam the hundreds of subscribers of this mailing li

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: >> I apologize for the grammaticall brokenness of that sentence. > > maybe you should spam the hundreds of subscribers of this mailing list with > this line: > > s,grammaticall,grammatical, > > >

Re: Backtick versus $()

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > tcsh is not a shell ... > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ If you are _that_ strongly opposed to (t)csh, sir, I submit that you are wasting your time reading and posting to a FreeBSD mailing list. ___ freebsd

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden >> wrote: >>> >>> -- >>> Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F >>> http://chipsquips.com  | http://camdensof

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden > wrote: >> >> -- >> Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F >> http://chipsquips.com  | http://camdensoftware.com   | http://chipstips.com >> > > btw, would you stop

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:23PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:15:30PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> > >> > it doesn't matter if it wasn't you >> > >> > if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same p

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:23PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:15:30PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > > > > it doesn't matter if it wasn't you > > > > if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same person > > I see. Suggesting that slinging insults makes

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:57:08PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > > > That wasn't me.  I could make some insulting references to failings > > > of yours that resulted in this mistake on your part, but I really > > > do not think that's necessa

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > You are naught but a troll.  Killfiled. actually im the only person that bothered explaining the 2 noobs at the start of the thread how shell works then a buncha jokers started talking about tcsh you are the trolls that aren't contributing e

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:15:30PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > > it doesn't matter if it wasn't you > > if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same person I see. Suggesting that slinging insults makes him retarded. You are naught but a troll. Killfiled. -- Chad Perrin [ o

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > That wasn't me.  I could make some insulting references to failings of > > yours that resulted in this mistake on your part, but I really do not > > think that's necessary.  It is much more fun to just watch you > > self-destruct. > > it d

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:36:53PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden >> wrote: >> > Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: >> > >> > [snip] >> >> >> >> no, let's start by looking at the SOU

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:09:21PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> >> >> >> the author of vi, who is also the author of c

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:36:53PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden > wrote: > > Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > [snip] > >> > >> no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of > >> WIKIPEDIA you DROOLING BUF

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:14:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > I'll try to help make it easy for you, since you seem to be having a > > lot of trouble grasping the concept of actually trying to make a > > point via logical argument and p

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 24 February 2011 17:39, Chip Camden wrote: . . . > Though I dislike the OP's dismissal of backticks, I must admit that I > would prefer that the standard shell be at least Bourne-compatible.  I > use csh for root for all the reasons that you shouldn't change your root > shell.  I suppose I coul

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:09:21PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > >> > >> the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code > > > > Good for him. > > let's

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > [snip] >> >> no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of WIKIPEDIA >> you DROOLING BUFFOON >> > [snip] > >> if you disagree then you are retarded and the exchange co

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Andres Perera on Thursday, 24 February 2011: [snip] > > no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of WIKIPEDIA > you DROOLING BUFFOON > [snip] > if you disagree then you are retarded and the exchange concludes > [snip] Resorting to personal insults doesn't help ma

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > I'll try to help make it easy for you, since you seem to be having a lot > of trouble grasping the concept of actually trying to make a point via > logical argument and presentation of evidence: > > Start with the Wikipedia page comparing comma

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: >> > >> > So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete >> > (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has

Re: Backtick versus $()

I'll try to help make it easy for you, since you seem to be having a lot of trouble grasping the concept of actually trying to make a point via logical argument and presentation of evidence: Start with the Wikipedia page comparing command shells [0]. Look through the various tables there -- feel

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete > > (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's > > better because I like it." >

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:15:22 -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > funny how you point out trivialities and go on to mention one yourself For an interactive command line shell, it's the "trivialities" that count - for _me_, which indicates that other persons may have very different preferences and requir

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Polytropon wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:03 -0600, Gary Gatten wrote: >> Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. >> It does everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. >> It doesn't require any upgrades, ever.  It's 100% sec

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:32:04PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > > Quoth Gary Gatten on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It > > > does everything you can possibly think of today an

RE: Backtick versus $()

-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:26 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:32:04PM -0800, Chip

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten wrote: >> > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period.  It does >> > everything you can possibly think of today a

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:03 -0600, Gary Gatten wrote: > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. > It does everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. > It doesn't require any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. > It doesn't use any memory or other resources, $

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:32:04PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Gary Gatten on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It > > does everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It > > doesn't require any upgrades, ever. It

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten wrote: > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period.  It does > > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow.  It doesn't > > require any upgrades, ever.  

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Gary Gatten on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It does > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It doesn't require > any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any memory or other > resources, $hit,

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten wrote: > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period.  It does > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow.  It doesn't > require any upgrades, ever.  It's 100% secure.  It doesn't use any > memory or other resources, $hit

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:18:03PM -0600, Gary Gatten wrote: > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It does > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It doesn't > require any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any > memory or other reso

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:42:18PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? > > mksh is better than tcsh for everything Thank you for your opinion, but it's just an opinion with no explanation, logic, or evi

RE: Backtick versus $()

-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Polytropon Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:13 PM To: Chad Perrin Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:25

Re: Backtick versus $()

Hello Andres Perera, Am 2011-02-20 22:19:49, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > that's not true :-D > echo `echo 1\`echo 2\\\`echo 3\\\`echo 4\\\`\\\`\`` Backslash Orgies! Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:25 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer > > wrote: > > > > > > I've read it before. Who hasn't? > > > > I haven't. :-) > > While reading it, just keep this in mind:

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? mksh is better than tcsh for everything ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubsc

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer > wrote: > > > > I've read it before. Who hasn't? > > I haven't. :-) While reading it, just keep this in mind: It's about "programming" in csh. It's not about using csh as an interact

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:58:34 -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > Thanks for that -- though I'll go with: > > set -o vi > > TYVM. I didn't know /bin/sh supported those modes. It's hardly known as /bin/sh is _not_ used for interactive comunication regularly, as it's basically the system's standard sc

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:39:24PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > > > What we have not yet determined is: > > > > 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? > > Though I dislike the OP's dismissal of backticks, I must admit that I > would prefer tha

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Matthew Seaman on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > On 24/02/2011 22:39, Chip Camden wrote: > > I suppose I could change root to /bin/sh, but that doesn't even > > have command recall. > > set -o emacs > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 24/02/2011 22:39, Chip Camden wrote: > I suppose I could change root to /bin/sh, but that doesn't even > have command recall. set -o emacs Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:34:25PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes: > > > > 1. You think some measure of popularity of a decision makes it correct. > > No. Why do you substitute others' email messages for an actual, direct response to my question, then? > > > >

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer wrote: > (New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive > tcsh, so it is a good idea to be compatible when posting stuff to the > mailing lists, etc. if possible. There was something on the ports@ > list a while back, about PRs fo

Re: Backtick versus $()

Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 24 February 2011: > > What we have not yet determined is: > > 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Though I dislike the OP's dismissal of backticks, I must admit that I would pr

Re: Backtick versus $()

Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes: > 1. You think some measure of popularity of a decision makes it correct. No. > 2. You don't like (t)csh. No. I just point out it’s not a suitable scripting shell. > 3. You think your opinions are so self-evident that everybody will just > immediately underst

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes: > > > > That’s a FreeBSD® specific issue though. Other operating systems > > > did the sensible thing ages ago ☺ > > > > What exactly is "the sensible thing"? > > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb

Re: Backtick versus $()

Chad Perrin apotheon.com> writes: > > That’s a FreeBSD® specific issue though. Other operating systems > > did the sensible thing ages ago ☺ > > What exactly is "the sensible thing"? http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/user/ user.c.diff?r1=1.116&r2=1.117&only_with_tag=MAIN http://

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 24 February 2011 16:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Rob Farmer predatorlabs.net> writes: > >> Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? > > tcsh is not a shell. Well, it’s an interactive command line > interpreter, not a bad one compared to what else is offered > at that, but… > >

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:36:37PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Rob Farmer dixit: > > > >(New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive > >tcsh > > That’s a FreeBSD® specific issue though. Other operating systems > did the sensible thing ages ago ☺ What exactly is "the sen

Re: Backtick versus $()

Rob Farmer dixit: >(New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive >tcsh That’s a FreeBSD® specific issue though. Other operating systems did the sensible thing ages ago ☺ Even then, I tend to disagree here. There’s the common use of ‘% ’ and ‘$ ’ (and ‘# ’ but we use sudo(8)

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Rob Farmer predatorlabs.net> writes: > >> Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? > > tcsh is not a shell. Well, it’s an interactive command line > interpreter, not a bad one compared to what else is offered > at that, but

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jerry wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:02:22 -0800 > Rob Farmer articulated: > >> Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? >> >> [rfarmer@sapphire] ~> echo $(date ) >> Illegal variable name. > > Since I use Bash as my default shell, I never suffer f

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:02:22 -0800 Rob Farmer articulated: > Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? > > [rfarmer@sapphire] ~> echo $(date ) > Illegal variable name. Since I use Bash as my default shell, I never suffer from that problem. I was wondering if anyone had ever files

Re: Backtick versus $()

Rob Farmer predatorlabs.net> writes: > Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? tcsh is not a shell. Well, it’s an interactive command line interpreter, not a bad one compared to what else is offered at that, but… http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ bye, //mirab

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Andres Perera zoho.com> writes: > >> "mandated by posix" and reality usually aren't in sync, as i'm sure you know > by > > In this case, closely enough. > >> now since you pointed out solaris > > It’s just /bin/sh on long outdated version

Re: Backtick versus $()

Andres Perera zoho.com> writes: > "mandated by posix" and reality usually aren't in sync, as i'm sure you know by In this case, closely enough. > now since you pointed out solaris It’s just /bin/sh on long outdated versions (newer ones, both from Horracle and not, have AT&T ksh93 there instea

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Andres Perera zoho.com> writes: > >> > Nowadays all shells supports $() so I advise you to use it :). >> >> no, not all shells support $() > > They do, it’s mandated by POSIX. There’s no reason to support the > accidentally non-combining a

Re: Backtick versus $()

Andres Perera zoho.com> writes: > > Nowadays all shells supports $() so I advise you to use it :). > > no, not all shells support $() They do, it’s mandated by POSIX. There’s no reason to support the accidentally non-combining accent gravis (so-called “backtick”¹) any more, unless you specifica

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Warren Block wrote: > > With backticks, the backreference \1 never seems to be replaced with the > actual pattern, regardless of search pattern.  Tested on 8-stable and > 9-current. this isn't really new and it's not particular to freebsd sh(1) for i in bash dash

Re: Backtick versus $()

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM, David Demelier wrote: > > I'd prefere $() rather than ``. It's more powerful, for example you can > write a multiple $() but not `` see : that's not true for i in bash dash mksh; do echo $i: $i <<'!' echo `echo 1\`echo 2\\\`echo 3\\\`echo 4\\\`\\\`\`` ! d

Re: Backtick versus $()

Dropped the last line of the script. Also lined up the seds to show the regex is the same in both. #!/bin/sh DESTDIR="./" COMPFILE=".cshrc" PSTR=`echo "${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE}" | sed 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g'` echo ${PSTR} PSTR=$(echo "${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE}" | sed 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g') echo

Re: Backtick versus $()

On 20/02/2011 18:40, Warren Block wrote: $() apparently isn't quite the same as backticks, although sh(1) doesn't mention that, or I just missed it. This script is just supposed to escape special characters* in a path/filename: #!/bin/sh DESTDIR="./" COMPFILE=".cshrc" PSTR=`echo "${DESTDIR}${C

Backtick versus $()

$() apparently isn't quite the same as backticks, although sh(1) doesn't mention that, or I just missed it. This script is just supposed to escape special characters* in a path/filename: #!/bin/sh DESTDIR="./" COMPFILE=".cshrc" PSTR=`echo "${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE}" | sed 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g'