Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Ksh use (was Re: Should ``csh be part of ...) Message-ID: <7855@ncoast.UUCP> Date: 2 Jun 88 20:40:23 GMT References: <14528@brl-adm.ARPA> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 31 As quoted from <14528@brl-adm.ARPA> by rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim): +--------------- | Bourne shell (and I assume ksh) use {} to denote a list of commands, | similar to a subshell, but executed in the same shell. Thus, I doubt | that the pattern generation will ever be implemented unless they can | find some free meta-characters. A pity, as I am attached to this feature | as well. I do `mv foo.c{,.old}' etc all the time. +--------------- But "{" is legal only if the next token is newline or ";" -- try it! "{" immediately followed by a non-space which is not newline or tab could be recognized as a pattern construct. (I daresay the code would be ugly, though.) +--------------- | Agreed. Only lunatics *prefer* 'csh' for scripts. I just want a Bourne | shell with shell functions and history. Does that exist? :-) | | Disagreed. Unless your script is trivial, you need features that sh | provides, or you want to make your scripts portable, coding in csh | is more intuitive. Sh command syntax is braindamaged. +--------------- I find nothing braindamaged about it: it's quite straightforward and logical. Which is more than I can say for csh, which deludes you into thinking it's C and then hits you with its variant syntax and general stupidity when you least expect it. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!marque,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY MCI Mail: BALLBERY