In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thorsten Kampe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * 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 Well, that certainly must just about say it all. It's nice to see that the author knows rc and es, which are indeed a couple of very much better designed shells. I am not sure I agree with him so much on shell programming in general, but it depends on what his point really may be. For sure, it's good to be aware of those things, at any rate. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
