Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!eurocontrol.fr!polaris.eurocontrol.fr!not-for-mail
From: Ollivier.Robert@eurocontrol.fr (Ollivier Robert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Which Shell?
Date: 3 Dec 1996 14:37:12 GMT
Organization: Eurocontrol EEC, Bretigny, France
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <581duo$4ta@polaris.eurocontrol.fr>
References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961130104832.14837A-100000@darkstar> <57qsti$kpl$4@gail.ripco.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mozart.eurocontrol.fr
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test46 (31 Oct 96)
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In article <57qsti$kpl$4@gail.ripco.com>, Dr. Who <mind@ripco.com> wrote:
> standard as scripts go these days. tcsh is too full of little twists that
> don't make much sense (as well as a nice share of inadequacies). If not
Depends on your use. Scripts should always be written in Bourne shell
syntax where it is not an important matter for just interactive use. tcsh
is unbeatable for interactive use although zsh is close.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- Eurocontrol EEC/TS -=- Ollivier.Robert@eurocontrol.fr
FreeBSD FAQ: <URL:http://www.FreeBSD.org/FAQ/>