> I agree with you when it comes to scripting but I'm not going to
> stonewall someone asking a specific question.
Nor would I. I tried to recall my csh from, ooh, 13/14 years ago and
failed miserably to solve Anna's problem. A problem that is
trivially soluble in the Bourne or derivative shells.
My point, though hardly expressed eloquently, was that for the
benefit of people trying to use Unix well we should indicate where
shells', and in this case, the [t]csh, limitations lie. If setting
an alias provokes a storm of "isn't the csh's quoting system funny"
then those limits lie not far beyond simply running programs at the
command line. On the other hand, recently in this group, doing weird
things inside Bourne shell aliases makes me say: use a function. If
someone asked about managing complex numbers in the shell most of us
would reply Perl/C/C++ etc..
I'd rather Anna was able to make progress in solving her problem and
if that requires shifting to a more useful shell then that's the
advice we should offer. If you can solve her problem in [t]csh, all
well and good, "but look how easy it is in the Bourne shell," should
Quote:> the technique. But I suppose you don't approve of any use of csh/tcsh.
When I started out I used the csh and was quite happy with it, even
writing some little scripts. But as I looked around scripting was,
by and large, being done in the Bourne shell. I hated the syntax
compared to the csh. Now, a good deal older and maybe just a little
wiser I realise that the uncomfortable syntax pays of in terms of the
elegance and programmability of the shell. Progress. For someone
starting out, csh is fine -- "just don't expect to write too many
scripts," I'd say.