* Cameron Laird (2005-06-02 18:08 +0100) > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Meanwhile, it might be worthwhile to reconsider the use >>of ksh here, if you have any choice in the matter. Ksh >>is fine for interactive use, but has some unfortunate >>flaws as a programming shell, and due to proprietary issues >>one commonly encounters an alternative implementation that's >>even worse. On most modern platforms, sh will have a pretty >>good programming feature set, and will be more reliable >>(especially if it isn't just ksh by another name.) > . > Infidel. While I sure feel that way about csh(1), it > surprises me you'd criticize ksh(1) so. 'Fact, 'mong > all the *sh-s, I *recommend* ksh for programming. May- > be the two of us see things differently.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.unix.shell/msg/98578e8d95137a3c -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
