Ksh use (was Re: Should ``csh'' be part of ...)
Rob Thurlow
rthurlow at van-bc.UUCP
Thu May 19 12:12:24 AEST 1988
I want to bitch about being with a not-huge company. The cost of $2000
for source is hard to justify for a product I believe to be great but
have not seen. We have four different System V boxes; you'd think one
of the vendors would give out 'ksh' as a freebie. Since I'm dreaming,
why can't it be AT&T, who doesn't even give us 'csh' for some reason?
Come on guys, this IS 1988; can't I get a computer to remember what I
typed for me? Why do they even ship the 3B2 V.2 without a shell which
can do history?
INFO help_me()
{
Which reminds me - anyone got a line on where we can buy a binary
of 'ksh' for the AT&T 3B2 running System V Release 2? I heard that
this was available. That we might be able to buy.
}
Two other points -
In article <2199 at quacky.mips.COM> dce at mips.COM (David Elliott) writes:
> Does ksh have anything like {}? (In case you don't know, "-r1.{2,4}"
> expands to "-r1.2 -r1.4".)
NB - this happens regardless of whether any files exist with names like
this. There's lots of ways to generate names of files in sh & csh, but
not enough to just manufacture arbitrary patterns, in my opinion; this
feature bucks that trend.
>Of course, I'm not completely insane, since I often go into sh to run
>loops, and I write on sh scripts, never csh scripts.
Agreed. Only lunatics *prefer* 'csh' for scripts. I just want a Bourne
shell with shell functions and history. Does that exist? :-)
Disclaimer: My company does not necessarily share my views. But they
don't have USENET, so you won't find their name in this
message anyway.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There was something fishy about the butler. I think he was a Pisces, |
probably working for scale." - Nick Danger |
uunet-----\ |
Robert Thurlow !van-bc!rthurlow |
ubc-cs----/ |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Comp.unix.wizards
mailing list