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