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 http://www.xpbargains.net We look forward to your continued business in the future. Regards, Webmaster ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 http://www.xpbargains.net We look forward to your continued business in the future. Regards, Webmaster ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Rob Farmer rfarmer at 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 already. Please know that the discussion “style” of that other guy is in no way related to mksh. be part of some obscure OpenBSD fork. Actually, it’s just developed as part of it. It’s in FreeBSD® ports, you know ☺ but actively used by quite a number of operating systems, such as Android, and included with many others (Debian/*buntu, Fedora, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, to name just a few), and available for/on even more. Most recent addition is FreeMiNT on Atari, and I’m expecting LynxOS any time now. As stated last week, I’m not likely to come back to this thread again. Dropping in via GMane only, anyway. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org wrote: Rob Farmer rfarmer at 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 already. Please know that the discussion “style” of that other guy is in no way related to mksh. bash is better than mksh be part of some obscure OpenBSD fork. Actually, it’s just developed as part of it. It’s in FreeBSD® ports, you know ☺ but actively used by quite a number of operating systems, such as Android, and included with many others (Debian/*buntu, Fedora, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, to name just a few), and available for/on even more. Most recent addition is FreeMiNT on Atari, and I’m expecting LynxOS any time now. As stated last week, I’m not likely to come back to this thread again. Dropping in via GMane only, anyway. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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, jesus christ, you're such a friggen noob Before you criticise another's spelling/grammar, perhaps you could learn where the Shift key is. Also, some quotes from you (spot the errors): and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing [wow, two in the same sentence] been consistently argueing against the opposite a buncha noobs is what you both are [paira perhaps] Normally it's considered bad form to attack another's use of language, but you lose that protection if you pick on others' QWC. By the way, there's no such thing as a 'strawman', and perhaps you could read about ad hominem arguments [1] and how you automatically lose any arguments where you bring them in. Chris [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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, jesus christ, you're such a friggen noob Before you criticise another's spelling/grammar, perhaps you could learn where the Shift key is. wow another misguided puppy the keyword here is spamming now think about the differences between a crappy php web forum and a mailing list and how grammar/spelling can be inferred it's not just that you're noobs, but completely ungrateful ones Also, some quotes from you (spot the errors): and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing [wow, two in the same sentence] been consistently argueing against the opposite a buncha noobs is what you both are [paira perhaps] Normally it's considered bad form to attack another's use of language, but you lose that protection if you pick on others' QWC. By the way, there's no such thing as a 'strawman', and perhaps you could read about ad hominem arguments [1] and how you automatically lose any arguments where you bring them in. Chris [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On 25 February 2011 18:02, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 February 2011 02:55, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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, jesus christ, you're such a friggen noob Before you criticise another's spelling/grammar, perhaps you could learn where the Shift key is. wow another misguided puppy the keyword here is spamming now think about the differences between a crappy php web forum and a mailing list and how grammar/spelling can be inferred it's not just that you're noobs, but completely ungrateful ones Ungrateful? I really don't follow. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Andres Perera andres.p at 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 specifically target Solaris 10 and below’s /bin/sh (which always had a ksh and /usr/xpg4/bin/sh which both are POSIX compatible), or, worse, the Bourne shell (you know, the one where you wrote ^ instead of | for pipes). Warren Block wblock at wonkity.com writes: Still: aren't backticks and $() supposed to be equivalent? Nope. The so-called backtick is deprecated, doesn’t support nesting, and quoting (`………`) is Undefined, both with or without backslashes in front of the (inner) double quotes. And there may be more. ① http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/apostrophe.html explains quite well why a “backtick” doesn’t exist and the accident behind this ASCII character / codepoint. In short: never use it period. bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org wrote: Andres Perera andres.p at 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 specifically target Solaris 10 and below’s /bin/sh (which always had a ksh and /usr/xpg4/bin/sh which both are POSIX compatible), or, worse, the Bourne shell (you know, the one where you wrote ^ instead of | for pipes). mandated by posix and reality usually aren't in sync, as i'm sure you know by now since you pointed out solaris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Andres Perera andres.p at 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 ATT ksh93 there instead). No need to use it, anyway. sh scripts can usually depend on a POSIX shell (and it’s sensible to do so). Some operating environments have guaranteed that (MirBSD even guarantees mksh but Debian Policy §10.4 explicitly states POSIX plus a few extensions). And AFAIK all FreeBSD® shells have it. bye, //mirabilos -- “It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.” -- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org wrote: Andres Perera andres.p at 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 ATT ksh93 there instead). No need to use it, anyway. sh scripts can usually depend on a POSIX shell (and it’s sensible to do so). Some operating environments have guaranteed that (MirBSD even guarantees mksh but Debian Policy §10.4 explicitly states POSIX plus a few extensions). And AFAIK all FreeBSD® shells have it. Have you used the default FreeBSD shell (tcsh) recently? [rfarmer@sapphire] ~ echo $(date ) Illegal variable name. [rfarmer@sapphire] ~ echo `date` Thu Feb 24 12:59:00 PST 2011 [rfarmer@sapphire] ~ uname -a FreeBSD sapphire.predatorlabs.net 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #0 r218838: Sat Feb 19 03:39:34 PST 2011 rfar...@sapphire.predatorlabs.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAPPHIRE amd64 And I read the article you posted - basically it seemed to say some keyboards are screwed up, so rather than fix them would everyone stop using this character please. I have a good feeling what the success rate of that will be. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Rob Farmer rfarmer at 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, //mirabilos -- Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh- ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in Notes on Programming in C ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:02:22 -0800 Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net 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 a PR against that behavior though? -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Ignorance is never out of style. It was in fashion yesterday, it is the rage today, and it will set the pace tomorrow. Franklin K. Dane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jerry freebsd.u...@seibercom.net wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:02:22 -0800 Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net 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 a PR against that behavior though? why would they add $() support for *csh? the whole shell is pretty far away from posix, and there's no reason to change its syntax since it's not used for scripting (this thread is really funny) -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Ignorance is never out of style. It was in fashion yesterday, it is the rage today, and it will set the pace tomorrow. Franklin K. Dane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org wrote: Rob Farmer rfarmer at 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… (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 for new ports, where this came up. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ I've read it before. Who hasn't? And I find it unconvincing, since it is just a list of shortcomings. If those shortcomings don't affect me, why do I care? -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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) these days) as PS1 in examples to distinguish between these two. bye, //mirabilos -- 13:47⎜tobiasu if i were omnipotent, i would divide by zero all day long ;) (thinking about http://lobacevski.tumblr.com/post/3260866481 by waga) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 sensible thing? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpm2xxdfCfHY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On 24 February 2011 16:05, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.org wrote: Rob Farmer rfarmer at 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/ Need to update faqs.org to include an article on why you oughtn't read faqs.org as anything other than opinion. Oh, wait: http://www.faqs.org/terms.html -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Chad Perrin perrin at 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=1.116r2=1.117only_with_tag=MAIN http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20050328171714thres=0mode=expanded http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.miros.cvs/3279 bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Chad Perrin perrin at 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=1.116r2=1.117only_with_tag=MAIN http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20050328171714thres=0mode=expanded http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.miros.cvs/3279 So . . . we've determined three things: 1. You think some measure of popularity of a decision makes it correct. 2. You don't like (t)csh. 3. You think your opinions are so self-evident that everybody will just immediately understand them, their reasoning, and the best way to proceed from there. 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 ] pgpxJY4y0zbCh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
Chad Perrin perrin at 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 understand them, their reasoning, and the best way to proceed from there. I may have some shortcomings when it comes to getting a point across. 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? Probably. (Even Android uses mksh these days.) But that’s up to you guys. On the other hand, it’s tradition. But then, I never asked for this (here, I did in other places) either. See above. Anyway, goodnight (and I’ll probably not get back to this thread, just hope to have brought some thought-provoking impulse). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 24 February 2011: snip 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 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 could change root to /bin/sh, but that doesn't even have command recall. I don't know how many times I've keyed in a nicely composed off-the-cuff conditional only to have it fall flat. I have to remind myself to start zsh first when working as root, or start getting used to using toor instead, or just always use sudo. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgp43JC0ndmoS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote:
(New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive
tcsh, so it is a good idea to be compatible when posting stuff to the
mailing lists, etc. if possible. There was something on the ports@
list a while back, about PRs for new ports, where this came up.
That's why it is a nice tradition to indicate which
kind of shell a command should be issued to, for example
% set x = 100; foreach y ( ) boo_$x
which is for C shell (tcsh), versus
$ Q=1; W=2; [ ${Q} ] meow `ls` hi.there
which is for (ba)sh. It get's interesting when talking
about commands to be issued as root. :-)
# pwd
I've read it before. Who hasn't?
I haven't. :-)
And I find it unconvincing, since it
is just a list of shortcomings. If those shortcomings don't affect me,
why do I care?
The article basically concentrates on shell PROGRAMMING,
and I agree that programming scripts is not the biggest
stength of the C shell. On the other hand, it's a very
good interactive command line interpreter (as mentioned
before) that is, in some regards (mainly driven by very
individual taste), superior to the hyped bash. But it's
also worth mentioning that there are even better shells
which combine the best of both worlds, like zsh, a shell
that many professionals seem to prefer over the other
ones mentioned.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:34:25PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Chad Perrin perrin at 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? 2. You don't like (t)csh. No. I just point out it’s not a suitable scripting shell. Who said anything about using it for scripting? The URIs you provided all lead to others talking about what to use as an *interactive* shell. I use tcsh as an interactive shell all the time, and use sh as a scripting shell. Having (t)csh as the default shell in no way means you have to do your admin scripting in (t)csh. 3. You think your opinions are so self-evident that everybody will just immediately understand them, their reasoning, and the best way to proceed from there. I may have some shortcomings when it comes to getting a point across. You didn't even try to make a point. 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? Probably. (Even Android uses mksh these days.) But that’s up to you guys. On the other hand, it’s tradition. Probably. Why? Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. But then, I never asked for this (here, I did in other places) either. See above. What was the point of referring to the sensible thing, then? Anyway, goodnight (and I’ll probably not get back to this thread, just hope to have brought some thought-provoking impulse). It's not thought-provoking if it doesn't include any thought. If you think you have a compelling argument, you'll have better luck provoking thought by letting us in on it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp3GC2e85dHU.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW Thanks for that -- though I'll go with: set -o vi TYVM. I didn't know /bin/sh supported those modes. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgpg5qBbtjLy8.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 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 could change root to /bin/sh, but that doesn't even have command recall. I don't know how many times I've keyed in a nicely composed off-the-cuff conditional only to have it fall flat. I have to remind myself to start zsh first when working as root, or start getting used to using toor instead, or just always use sudo. The toor account seems like the right answer here. In general, I actually prefer the csh-style syntax for an interactive shell, personally. I would be willing to deal with sh as the default shell, and make changes to use tcsh instead as needed, though. Would I would not want is to go the other direction -- to change the default shell to something with too many dependencies and licensing more restrictive than FreeBSD's preferred license. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpGMzjEaXAjV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:58:34 -0800, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com 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 scripting shell. It's interactive use is reserved for emergencies, operations performed in single user mode to bring back the system to perform normally. Still, it *CAN* be used for this porpose quite well when configured properly - if needed. I could also say: If you're spending too much time in sh interactive sessions to think about it, you're probably doing something wrong. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 rfar...@predatorlabs.net 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 interactive user shell. People who try to use it as proof that we should not use csh as an interactive user shell don't get it. And I find it unconvincing, since it is just a list of shortcomings. If those shortcomings don't affect me, why do I care? The article basically concentrates on shell PROGRAMMING, and I agree that programming scripts is not the biggest stength of the C shell. On the other hand, it's a very good interactive command line interpreter (as mentioned before) that is, in some regards (mainly driven by very individual taste), superior to the hyped bash. But it's also worth mentioning that there are even better shells which combine the best of both worlds, like zsh, a shell that many professionals seem to prefer over the other ones mentioned. I see from this you are not prone to confuse programming with an interactive user shell. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp9gFhy5T8oR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:25 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net 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 interactive user shell. People who try to use it as proof that we should not use csh as an interactive user shell don't get it. From my personal experience, I know that the C shell is not the best shell for scripting, but one of the best interactive shells. The article proves the first part of my statement to be quite... accurate, as the C shell really has some specific syntax - redirection and grouping are typical issues. But well, that's not a big problem as the C shell does not claim to be command-line compatible to (ba)sh. I see from this you are not prone to confuse programming with an interactive user shell. I'm old enough not to be cheated that easily. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux itsystems@tdnet France EURL itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability) Owner Michelle KonzackOwner Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 (homeoffice) 50, rue de Soultz Kinzigstraße 17 67100 Strasbourg/France 77694 Kehl/Germany Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.flexray4linux.org/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.can4linux.org/ Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de ICQ#328449886 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net 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 interactive user shell. People who try to use it as proof that we should not use csh as an interactive user shell don't get it. From my personal experience, I know that the C shell is not the best shell for scripting, but one of the best interactive shells. The article proves the first part of my statement to be quite... accurate, as the C shell really has some specific syntax - redirection and grouping are typical issues. But well, that's not a big problem as the C shell does not claim to be command-line compatible to (ba)sh. I see from this you are not prone to confuse programming with an interactive user shell. I'm old enough not to be cheated that easily. :-) 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, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. font size=1 div style='border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in' /div This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. /font ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 per...@apotheon.com 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 evidence behind it, so far. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpDbPH82JQgB.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. What is this -- a bad joke? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpJToXjj3LRY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com 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, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like ls-F mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible turd that is (t)csh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. That one doesn't seem to be in ports. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgprb9B7ZgLRH.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 ggat...@waddell.com 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, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway You keep saying that. Maybe it's just personal taste. there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like ls-F mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible turd that is (t)csh 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. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp1160GmVAcc.pgp Description: PGP signature
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's 100% secure. It doesn't use any memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. That one doesn't seem to be in ports. In case you aren't just being sarcastic, I think pfmsh is a reference to pure fucking magic shell. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgprhsQH5sIyg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:03 -0600, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com 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, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. The standard reply to is better or is the best is I don't like followed by any arbitrary attribute, like but I don't like the color or I don't like the file names. :-) Meanwhile, I've looked into mksh and found out that giving it a standard prompt (user@host:path$) is not very easy and involves copying two lines from the manpage (search for PS1) into a config file. It's not that you can use bash's prompt 1:1 (or csh's). Completition and history behaviour is nice, better than bash, in my opinion, and equal to csh (which I prefer in this regards). Oh prefer - it's all very individual, that's why the system's default shell should be replaced by punched cards. Everyone likes colorful punched cards. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 ggat...@waddell.com 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, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway You keep saying that. Maybe it's just personal taste. there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like ls-F mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible turd that is (t)csh 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. you are an obtuse person the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid *you* are the one that's dodging questions history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a csh thing anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? it's faster than ls(1), which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear case of over-optimization what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 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's 100% secure. It doesn't use any memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. That one doesn't seem to be in ports. In case you aren't just being sarcastic, I think pfmsh is a reference to pure fucking magic shell. Yes, I was trying to bring an end to this thread with a bit of humor. So far I'd have to say I've failed on both accounts! font size=1 div style='border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in' /div This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. /font ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 and tomorrow. It doesn't require any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. That one doesn't seem to be in ports. In case you aren't just being sarcastic, I think pfmsh is a reference to pure fucking magic shell. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Yeah, I got that. Sorry my contributions to the topic are mostly flippant. In my defense, I thought about responding to the backslash orgy comment along the lines of nobody mentioned orgies -- count me in! But then I though better of it. Doh! -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgptnJEZiLkks.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:03 -0600, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com 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, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just magically works. There you have it. The standard reply to is better or is the best is I don't like followed by any arbitrary attribute, like but I don't like the color or I don't like the file names. :-) Meanwhile, I've looked into mksh and found out that giving it a standard prompt (user@host:path$) is not very easy and involves copying two lines from the manpage (search for PS1) into a config file. It's not that you can use bash's prompt 1:1 (or csh's). Completition and history behaviour is nice, better than bash, in my opinion, and equal to csh (which I prefer in this regards). adding prompt escapes is trivial, fixing a parser requires a new implementation funny how you point out trivialities and go on to mention one yourself Oh prefer - it's all very individual, that's why the system's default shell should be replaced by punched cards. Everyone likes colorful punched cards. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:15:22 -0430, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com 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 requirements. My general impressions are quite good, but they are from a usage point of view, not paying attention to how things are implemented internally. From my short visit in mksh (which I'm glad to know about now) I found that it does the most things that _I_ do require very well, and even better than bash (although it is more popular). Such trivial things include a standard UNIX prompt (maybe with collapsing $HOME to ~), least interactive comletition behaviour (in opposite to bash), and nice history functions (such as entering a few letters and then parse history with of all command that start that way). Those are things that worked out of the box (except PS1), and that's a really good thing. Additionally, installation went fast, didn't incorporate tons of dependencies, and resulted in a nice small binary - as this would be important today... :-) But it's worth being mentioned. So far, I will see if I will keep using this shell, as it is really promising. Still I would not suggest to remove csh from the system and replace it with mksh. If licensing allows it, it's maybe worth adding mksh to the system, but that is a decision _I_ am not the right person for. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 per...@apotheon.com 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. you are an obtuse person You have an attitude problem. I will only hold that against *you*, though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one that is worth the time I spent reading it. the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code Good for him. the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid I take it wonky is some technical term with which I am not familiar. *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a csh thing anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define feature -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? it's faster than ls(1), which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear case of over-optimization Maybe so. what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities. Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say things like this. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpV0Jmfhe7Bd.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 free to ignore the Programming features table since it's irrelevant to the question of what makes a good interactive user shell -- to see where shells differ. Based on the differences you find, build up a list of reasons that tcsh is not as good a choice as mksh. Next, offer some examples of common command line syntax rules and how they affect the way we compose commands. Such examples should include stuff like: * environment variable assignment, printing, and export * nesting commands * completion and history access * useful configuration file characteristics and capabilities Then, of course, you can go on to further strengthen your case with references to dependencies, licensing, resource consumption and on-drive size, bugs, and so on. Any of this stuff might actually present a meaningful argument, as opposed to just asserting other people are idiots, claiming you're right with nothing to back it up, and generally waving your hands and making a lot of noise without convincing anyone of anything. (By the way, I'll save you the trouble of referring to the license. I know that mksh uses the same license as the MirOS project, which is a variant of the Historic Permission license. It's a copyfree license; I have no objects to using it on those grounds, personally.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp9IXlxvWqWn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 per...@apotheon.com 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. you are an obtuse person You have an attitude problem. I will only hold that against *you*, though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one that is worth the time I spent reading it. the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code Good for him. let's pretend you know better by addressing your stupid responses the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid I take it wonky is some technical term with which I am not familiar. % if (0) echo file % ls file but of course, this is old as hell and was already linked by someone else in this thread ie, you're dodging problems *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a csh thing anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. then what other feature in tcsh would leverage against modern shells? why do i have to ask you this given that the query was implied a long time ago by more than one person? every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define feature -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. actually, it does apply because ls-F is a tcsh builtin, not csh do you even know the slightest thing about the shell you use? this information isn't exactly hidden, on the contrary, it's right there in the manual and before you even think about it, yes using both interchangeably is correct because in freebsd, csh is a link to tcsh another display of ignorance and big words without knowing about the subject Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. in a unix context, more features, specially those that overlap, are regarded as unwanted. no, i'm not going to explain orthogonality and its benefits to you -- it should be basic knowledge by now what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? it's faster than ls(1), which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear case of over-optimization Maybe so. what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities. Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. since i pointed out more than feature overlap, this is a weak strawman it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say things like this. what i can point out is that responding to each sentence out of context is very annoying. if ls-F being over-optimization recieves a maybe so qualification, then this is clearly a contradiction a noob accidentaly a tcsh -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 command shells [0]. Look through the various tables there -- feel free to ignore the Programming features table since it's irrelevant to the question of what makes a good interactive user shell -- to see where shells differ. Based on the differences you find, build up a list of reasons that tcsh is not as good a choice as mksh. no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of WIKIPEDIA you DROOLING BUFFOON Next, offer some examples of common command line syntax rules and how they affect the way we compose commands. Such examples should include stuff like: * environment variable assignment, printing, and export export is the same as environment variable assignment in this context why is this relevant to interactive shells and not scripting? arbitrary * nesting commands nesting commands? another programming paradigm? * completion and history access modern ksh variants include file completion, tcsh does arbitrary completion through aliases the second is arguably misguided since unix is file-centric, not --long-option-centric * useful configuration file characteristics and capabilities define useful Then, of course, you can go on to further strengthen your case with references to dependencies, licensing, resource consumption and on-drive size, bugs, and so on. no, bugs is the primary concern because the underlying design is more important than having flashy lights if you disagree then you are retarded and the exchange concludes just explicitly say it: i don't care if the shell is bugged from hell and back Any of this stuff might actually present a meaningful argument, as opposed to just asserting other people are idiots, claiming you're right with nothing to back it up, and generally waving your hands and making a lot of noise without convincing anyone of anything. (By the way, I'll save you the trouble of referring to the license. I know that mksh uses the same license as the MirOS project, which is a variant of the Historic Permission license. It's a copyfree license; I have no objects to using it on those grounds, personally.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 make your case. There is fertile ground for discussion here if you'd only look for it. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgpmYuA46wh62.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com 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 concludes [snip] Resorting to personal insults doesn't help make your case. There is fertile ground for discussion here if you'd only look for it. nor does insulting you (which is very easy) invalidate the other lines of text you are sidestepping, again how about you admit the whole discussion is a little over your head? specially your claim of ls-F not being tcsh (sad that i know more about your shell than you do) -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com btw, would you stop putting ads on your signature? it's annoying even more so when combined with your sad display of ignorance thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 per...@apotheon.com 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 pretend you know better by addressing your stupid responses Why are you such a troll? the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid I take it wonky is some technical term with which I am not familiar. % if (0) echo file % ls file but of course, this is old as hell and was already linked by someone else in this thread ie, you're dodging problems I didn't dodge a problem. I ignored something largely irrelevant to interactive use that *you* didn't bring up, anyway. Is that your only complaint about it being wonky? *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. Good job. Usually, you'd be more effective pretending I didn't call you on something if you did not requote it. history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a csh thing anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. then what other feature in tcsh would leverage against modern shells? why do i have to ask you this given that the query was implied a long time ago by more than one person? Why do you think more features automatically equals better? every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define feature -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. actually, it does apply because ls-F is a tcsh builtin, not csh No, it doesn't apply, because the barring clause is not the primary clause of that statement. The primary clause, and the point to which I responded, was every feature in csh is present in other shells. do you even know the slightest thing about the shell you use? Have you already forgotten what you, yourself, said -- even when you quoted it back to me? You said more than ls-F. I responded to that more. I left the ls-F clause in there to preserve some context for you. this information isn't exactly hidden, on the contrary, it's right there in the manual and before you even think about it, yes using both interchangeably is correct because in freebsd, csh is a link to tcsh That doesn't make using the terms interchangeably correct. It just makes it lazy. If I execute a shell with csh it behaves differently than if I execute it with tcsh, which is relevant to discussions of features it provides for interactive use. Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. in a unix context, more features, specially those that overlap, are regarded as unwanted. no, i'm not going to explain orthogonality and its benefits to you -- it should be basic knowledge by now My statement that feature counts are not measures of quality was in reference to your brilliant statement above that csh is not as good as other shells because they have all the (useful) features of csh, but more. I just questioned the value of but more in your implied argument. Thank you for reinforcing my argument for me. I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities. Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. since i pointed out more than feature overlap, this is a weak strawman It's not a straw man. It's a direct response to something *you* said. If you want to concede this point, feel free -- but don't claim that the fact you concede this point is proof that I'm not arguing fairly somehow. it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say things like this. what i can point out is that responding to each sentence out of context is very annoying. if ls-F being over-optimization recieves a maybe so qualification, then this is clearly a contradiction I'm responding to each point as a point. What am I supposed to do instead -- just take your approach, never address any specifics, and declare myself the winner? No thanks, I don't want to descend to your level of ineptitude at communicating with human beings. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpLtPydVNcFg.pgp Description:
Re: Backtick versus $()
On 24 February 2011 17:39, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com 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 could change root to /bin/sh, but that doesn't even have command recall. The injunction against changing root's shell is mostly against changing root's shell to something that does not reside in /. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 presentation of evidence: Start with the Wikipedia page comparing command shells [0]. Look through the various tables there -- feel free to ignore the Programming features table since it's irrelevant to the question of what makes a good interactive user shell -- to see where shells differ. Based on the differences you find, build up a list of reasons that tcsh is not as good a choice as mksh. no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of WIKIPEDIA If you find something inaccurate there, feel free to dispute it. I don't mind that at all. I was just offering you a place to start (which is all an encyclopedia is anyway; never treat it as the final word). If that's too difficult for you to understand, I'll try to avoid holding it against you. you DROOLING BUFFOON I might hold *that* against you, though -- even if it just hurts *you* in this community, rather than me. Next, offer some examples of common command line syntax rules and how they affect the way we compose commands. Such examples should include stuff like: * environment variable assignment, printing, and export export is the same as environment variable assignment in this context It is not always the same. Define this context so that your statement makes more sense, please. why is this relevant to interactive shells and not scripting? Have you never, ever set an environment variable temporarily within an interactive shell -- such as when using make? How little do you actually use a shell to not realize that this might be relevant to interactive shell preference? * nesting commands nesting commands? another programming paradigm? Nope. It's something people sometimes do when issuing shell commands. Have you never used backticks or dollar-parentheses to nest commands? * completion and history access modern ksh variants include file completion, tcsh does arbitrary completion through aliases I don't see any examples here. the second is arguably misguided since unix is file-centric, not --long-option-centric What does that have to do with it? * useful configuration file characteristics and capabilities define useful I guess that might be up to you, to some extent. I was just trying to offer you ideas for how to make a reasoned response, rather than go on ranting without substance. Then, of course, you can go on to further strengthen your case with references to dependencies, licensing, resource consumption and on-drive size, bugs, and so on. no, bugs is the primary concern because the underlying design is more important than having flashy lights if you disagree then you are retarded and the exchange concludes Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, since you have not mentioned any bugs. . . . and whether bugs are the biggest problem in no way proves that other problems do not exist or are not relevant. just explicitly say it: i don't care if the shell is bugged from hell and back I think you mean to hell and back. . . . and I never said I don't care if it's buggy. You also haven't started listing bugs, so it's a moot point. Pay close attention to this next paragraph: Any of this stuff might actually present a meaningful argument, as opposed to just asserting other people are idiots, claiming you're right with nothing to back it up, and generally waving your hands and making a lot of noise without convincing anyone of anything. Notice you still have not bothered to offer anything substantive. I essentially gave you a howto, and you still managed to fail. I get the impression you actually do not know anything about these shells that you have not already said, and are (in effect) screaming invective at me to avoid having to admit you have no reasonable argument to offer. Your most meaningful arguments so far are claims that I drool. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove a negative, so I have no evidence to support my assertion that, in the general case, I certainly do not drool. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpSXtdetV5mO.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 sterl...@camdensoftware.com 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 concludes [snip] Resorting to personal insults doesn't help make your case. There is fertile ground for discussion here if you'd only look for it. nor does insulting you (which is very easy) invalidate the other lines of text 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. By the way, it may not invalidate the other lines of text, but it does rather effectively eclipse them. The other lines of text are essentially invalidated by their own lack of reasoned argumentation, anyway. you are sidestepping, again Again, that wasn't me. how about you admit the whole discussion is a little over your head? Still wasn't me. specially your claim of ls-F not being tcsh (sad that i know more about your shell than you do) Not only was it not me to whom you replied here, but I did not claim that ls-F is not tcsh. Read *my* actual reply for the explanation of where you went flying off into never-never-right-land on that one. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com btw, would you stop putting ads on your signature? it's annoying How can you take note of the content of his signature block enough to comment on it like that without noticing it's nothing like my own signature block? Mine is below. Compare, and try to remember that you look like an asshole to more than one person here. even more so when combined with your sad display of ignorance Nope -- not me this time, either. thanks I wonder if Sterling Camden will offer a you're welcome to your hostile reception. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpGHRgIAMnLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:09:21PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code Good for him. let's pretend you know better by addressing your stupid responses Why are you such a troll? the only trolling itt has been perpetuated by you early on by being randomly argumentative against thorsten without knowing the slightest about the topic the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid I take it wonky is some technical term with which I am not familiar. % if (0) echo file % ls file but of course, this is old as hell and was already linked by someone else in this thread ie, you're dodging problems I didn't dodge a problem. I ignored something largely irrelevant to interactive use that *you* didn't bring up, anyway. Is that your only complaint about it being wonky? % if ($?asd $asd == str) echo true (let's quote every line that was linked before) *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. Good job. Usually, you'd be more effective pretending I didn't call you on something if you did not requote it. history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a csh thing anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. then what other feature in tcsh would leverage against modern shells? why do i have to ask you this given that the query was implied a long time ago by more than one person? Why do you think more features automatically equals better? actually, i've been consistently argueing against the opposite hence my calling out of redundant builtins reading comprehension 101 every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define feature -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. actually, it does apply because ls-F is a tcsh builtin, not csh No, it doesn't apply, because the barring clause is not the primary clause of that statement. The primary clause, and the point to which I responded, was every feature in csh is present in other shells. again sidestepping that you didn't know that ls-F was a tcsh builtin and claimed the opposite you are a boring, because you don't know what you're talking about and don't admit it i see that the trend continues throughout the rest of this mail... do you even know the slightest thing about the shell you use? Have you already forgotten what you, yourself, said -- even when you quoted it back to me? You said more than ls-F. I responded to that more. I left the ls-F clause in there to preserve some context for you. this information isn't exactly hidden, on the contrary, it's right there in the manual and before you even think about it, yes using both interchangeably is correct because in freebsd, csh is a link to tcsh That doesn't make using the terms interchangeably correct. It just makes it lazy. If I execute a shell with csh it behaves differently than if I execute it with tcsh, which is relevant to discussions of features it provides for interactive use. Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. in a unix context, more features, specially those that overlap, are regarded as unwanted. no, i'm not going to explain orthogonality and its benefits to you -- it should be basic knowledge by now My statement that feature counts are not measures of quality was in reference to your brilliant statement above that csh is not as good as other shells because they have all the (useful) features of csh, but more. I just questioned the value of but more in your implied argument. Thank you for reinforcing my argument for me. I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities. Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. since i pointed out more than feature overlap, this is a weak strawman It's not a straw man. It's a direct response to something *you* said. If you want to concede this point, feel free -- but don't claim that the fact you concede this point is proof that I'm not arguing fairly somehow. it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 sterl...@camdensoftware.com 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 concludes [snip] Resorting to personal insults doesn't help make your case. There is fertile ground for discussion here if you'd only look for it. nor does insulting you (which is very easy) invalidate the other lines of text 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 doesn't matter if it wasn't you if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same person By the way, it may not invalidate the other lines of text, but it does rather effectively eclipse them. The other lines of text are essentially invalidated by their own lack of reasoned argumentation, anyway. you are sidestepping, again Again, that wasn't me. how about you admit the whole discussion is a little over your head? Still wasn't me. specially your claim of ls-F not being tcsh (sad that i know more about your shell than you do) Not only was it not me to whom you replied here, but I did not claim that ls-F is not tcsh. Read *my* actual reply for the explanation of where you went flying off into never-never-right-land on that one. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com btw, would you stop putting ads on your signature? it's annoying How can you take note of the content of his signature block enough to comment on it like that without noticing it's nothing like my own signature block? Mine is below. Compare, and try to remember that you look like an asshole to more than one person here. even more so when combined with your sad display of ignorance Nope -- not me this time, either. thanks I wonder if Sterling Camden will offer a you're welcome to your hostile reception. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 doesn't matter if it wasn't you if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same person I wonder what Andres will think of this thread if he ever gets around to re-reading it after recovering from his meth hangover tomorrow. thanks I wonder if Sterling Camden will offer a you're welcome to your hostile reception. You're welcome, Andres! Now go sleep it off. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgpF1jhAlxX9Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpAFmudbwHQv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 everything and one of them still hasnt admitted their part on the ls-F fiasco they think they can argue their way out of everything a buncha noobs is what you both are -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 necessary. It is much more fun to just watch you self-destruct. it doesn't matter if it wasn't you if you're all retarded then you are all effectively the same person I wonder what Andres will think of this thread if he ever gets around to re-reading it after recovering from his meth hangover tomorrow. What little I know of meth (I've never used it, but I knew a couple people who did, and I pretended to in a movie once), this honestly doesn't come across as a meth hangover to me. thanks I wonder if Sterling Camden will offer a you're welcome to your hostile reception. You're welcome, Andres! Now go sleep it off. That's awfully accommodating of you. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpeY7YX1aWjc.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 him retarded. Wow -- I missed an important chunk of that sentence. It should have said: Suggesting that slinging insults is not productive makes him retarded. I apologize for the grammaticall brokenness of that sentence. You are naught but a troll. Killfiled. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp72Ac7oRIAj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com 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 person I see. Suggesting that slinging insults makes him retarded. Wow -- I missed an important chunk of that sentence. It should have said: Suggesting that slinging insults is not productive makes him retarded. 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, jesus christ, you're such a friggen noob You are naught but a troll. Killfiled. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote: -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com btw, would you stop putting ads on your signature? it's annoying LOL - how hypocritical. This thread was four days dead then suddenly two people show up and start pushing this mksh shell, which seems to be part of some obscure OpenBSD fork. If anyone is advertising it's you. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote: -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com btw, would you stop putting ads on your signature? it's annoying LOL - how hypocritical. This thread was four days dead then suddenly two people show up and start pushing this mksh shell, which seems to be part of some obscure OpenBSD fork. If anyone is advertising it's you. actually, *any* modern ksh variant, including both oksh and mksh would be better than tcsh as default shell. both would be a huge improvement over the rotting pile of poop that is tcsh and if you're going to qualify, you better know wtf you're talking about, because mksh is used by android and red hat the only major os, excluding variants, with tcsh on the base system is freebsd nevermind that the tcsh comparison was done way before anyone explained mksh... noob -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 ${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE} | sed 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g'`
echo ${PSTR}
PSTR=$(echo ${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE} | sed 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g')
% ./test.sh
\1/\1cshrc
\./\.cshrc
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.
*: That's special characters as less(1) -Ps sees them.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
I'd prefere $() rather than ``. It's more powerful, for example you can
write a multiple $() but not `` see :
markand@Abricot ~ $ echo $(basename $(which dmesg))
dmesg
markand@Abricot ~ $ echo `basename `which dmesg``
usage: basename string [suffix]
basename [-a] [-s suffix] string [...]
which dmesg
Of course the example code is useless but shows the limitations of ``.
Nowadays all shells supports $() so I advise you to use it :).
Cheers,
--
David Demelier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
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 ${PSTR}
Also, the difference is in escapes; two more backslashes added to the
backtick version make it work:
PSTR=`echo ${DESTDIR}${COMPFILE} | sed 's#\([?:.%\\]\)#\1#g'`
echo ${PSTR}
Still: aren't backticks and $() supposed to be equivalent?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM, David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com 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\\\`\\\`\`` ! done bash: 1234 dash: 1234 mksh: 1234 markand@Abricot ~ $ echo $(basename $(which dmesg)) dmesg markand@Abricot ~ $ echo `basename `which dmesg`` usage: basename string [suffix] basename [-a] [-s suffix] string [...] which dmesg Of course the example code is useless but shows the limitations of ``. Nowadays all shells supports $() so I advise you to use it :). no, not all shells support $() Cheers, -- David Demelier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backtick versus $()
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com 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 mksh; do echo $i: $i '!' ra=` printf %s 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g'` rb=$(printf %s 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g') printf %s\\n $ra $rb ! done bash: s%\([?:.%\]\)%\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g dash: s%\([?:.%\]\)%\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g mksh: s%\([?:.%\]\)%\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g if you add another backslash to double-slashes in backticks: for i in bash dash mksh; do echo $i: $i '!' echo $i: ra=` printf %s 's%\([?:.%\\\]\)%\1%g'` rb=$(printf %s 's%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g') printf %s\\n $ra $rb ! done bash: s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g dash: s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g mksh: s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g s%\([?:.%\\]\)%\\\1%g no, backticks are not supposed to be equivalent ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
