Brian Fundakowski Feldman
green at freebsd.org
Fri Nov 12 21:25:27 PST 2004
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:47:10AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > > Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
> > > removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
> > > ports system. Other than historical reasons there is not much point in
> > > having it in the base system.
> > I strongly disagree. csh and sh should be 'pure' versions. That is to
> > say, no matter what shell is actually being called as sh or csh, it
> > should provide a 100% compatible version, no differences, no "upgrades".
> > This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of
> > Unix.
> What is a pure 'csh'?? Please answer in detail. Have you ever looked at
> the source code for 4.3BSD 'csh'? What about 'tcsh' source code? Hint,
> Christos Zoulas had at CSRG login and was maintaining and enhancing BSD
> 'csh'. The 4.4BSD 'csh' was Zoulas's work. 'tcsh' is simply the
> continued evolution of BSD 'csh'.
> So do you want the original Bill Joy 'csh' from 3BSD??
> Do you want the 'csh' that originally appeared in System 3 (or was it
> V)?? Do you wan the 4.4BSD-Lite2 'csh' (ie, the last from CSRG)??
> THERE IS NO STANDARD 'csh'. POSIX doesn't even try to standardize it.
> 'csh' is an interactive shell, not a programming language. Anyone trying
> to write "portable" scripts in 'csh' should know why "Csh Programming
> Considered Harmful" http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
How dare you interject reason into this flamewar!
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
<> green at FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \
Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
More information about the freebsd-hackers