tcsh fix

[Brian Fundakowski Feldman]

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.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\