Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Callan Unistar 200 Message-ID: <708@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Jun-83 20:23:05 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.708 Posted: Mon Jun 27 20:23:05 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jun-83 09:28:27 EDT Lines: 21 The redirection mechanism for stderr in csh isn't too good either; you simply CAN NOT send stderr down stdout and redirect them both to a pipe! This means you can't say something like make 2>&1 | tee /tmp/makelog in the C shell. Also, you can't redirect stderr other than down stdout. The syntax for the control flow constructs isn't that much more cryptic than the C shell's (which resembles C's constructs about as much as the Bourne shell's resemble Algol 68's). And people have added history and aliasing mechanisms to the Bourne shell, and job control could be added if somebody is ambitious enough. Face it, there are plenty of reasons to like or dislike both shells - I've found the Bourne shell quite friendly and easy to use. Did the C shell originally support the ability to type control structures (loops, etc.) at the terminal, or the ability to capture the standard output of a command and substitute it back into a command line? Guy Harris Computer Consoles, Inc. Office Systems Group {seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guy