On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:45:15AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not convinced. As the article itself points out, there are > workarounds for the perceived weaknesses of csh. And why pick on > the granddaddy, when the grandson is very much alive and kickin? > I've been using tcsh for both my scripts and its more > user-friendly shell. Admittedly I don't unleash them "unto the > world". But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh > scripting, OpenOffice.org.
i think one of the points of shell scripting is to be as portable
as possible, and nothing is more portable in the world of shell
scripting than /bin/sh...
afaik *csh is horribly inconsistant wrt POSIX compliance, and there are
even parts that can be optionally compiled POSIX-compliant and
non-compliant... that suggests one could get some nasty headaches
on different vendor's implementations of *csh.
sean
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
