Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!aplcen!haven!adm!xadmx!rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov
From: rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: csh problem involving nested ifs?
Message-ID: <20243@adm.BRL.MIL>
Date: 13 Jul 89 20:31:16 GMT
Sender: news@adm.BRL.MIL
Lines: 24

? From: Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net>

? Basically, it is undesirable to use the 'C' shell for any complicated
? scripts... or any scripts at all other than .cshrc and .login.

I disagree. CSH is much more natural to use than SH. The constructs are
more natural. In csh, I don't have to resort to `expr' and `test'
because these are builtin. The only things I see SH is good for are:

	1) portability - sh exists everywhere
	2) trivial scripts - starts faster
	3) complex file redirection - but how often do you do 3> anyway?
	4) shell fns - neat
	5) piping to `for' and `while' - but how often?

Of course, newer SH's and KSH help quite a bit.

? Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
? Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Th-th-th-that's all folks...
? Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  -- Mel Blanc
? Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |     May 30 1908 - Jul 10 1989

	Root Boy Jim
	Have GNU, Will Travel.