Hi Tom,
fish is mostly POSIX compliant, in the sense of IEEE 1003.1. That is, its
behavior for commands like echo, test, cd, pwd, etc. hew close to the POSIX
standard. Scripting is where it really diverges.
What I hope to convey is that you won't have to learn a whole new command set,
because fish uses the familiar POSIX syntax and options. But if you think it's
confusing or misleading, then I ought to change it.
Thanks,
_fish
On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Tom W. Most wrote:
> I just saw http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/ come up on Hacker News. Good work!
>
> One suggestion, though: instead of calling it a "POSIX command line shell",
> which would seem to imply POSIX compliance, perhaps "a command line shell for
> POSIX systems" would be more clear?
>
> The full text would read:
>
> The new fish is a smart and friendly command line shell for POSIX
> systems: OS X, Linux, and the rest of the family.
>
> Though of course the ordering of the OS names is a bit off there. ;-p
>
> —Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
