Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!olympus!sauron!bob@SU-SHASTA.ARPA From: bob@SU-SHASTA.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Berkeley 'dehancements' Message-ID: <12609@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 19:42:13 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12609 Posted: Sun Sep 30 19:42:13 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 08:26:55 EDT Lines: 10 It is unfortunate that you, and others, completely missed my point. I responded to someone's request 'for a csh to sh script translator so that he could run csh scripts published on the net on his system which did not have csh' by saying **systems** without csh are inferior to **systems** that do have it. (This is a paraphrase of the original.) My evidence is that a system with csh can run these scripts while those without csh cannot. I did not say that sh was inferior to csh. I find uses for each shell and would not want to be without either.