Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsl!bonnie!rbr
From: rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (4197,ATTT)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: mh_sh Shell problem: "cannot execute"
Message-ID: <5122@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Apr 90 13:45:43 GMT
References: <2039@bruce.OZ>
Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
Reply-To: rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (Bob Rager)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21

In article <2039@bruce.OZ> alanf@bruce.OZ (Alan Grant Finlay) writes:
>I have tried to get the recently posted bourne like shell for MS-DOS
>to work but it refuses to execute "dir" ...
... [ stuff deleted ]
>Did I misunderstand the intended function of this shell?


Could be. I your not a Nixi like myself that earns the daily bread using
UNIX you may not appreciate some of the stronger points of sh as a 
programming language like true logical expressions in the test command or
the "<<" redirection for shell archives. I use UNIX V during the day and
a PC at home. Due to the high degree of similarity between the Bourne shell
and COMMAND.COM, I have a great deal of problems making the switch. Writing
.BAT files is a pain. Other folks that need to work with both UNIX and MSDOS
have this problem.  Bugs or not Ian's port of the shell is a big step in
the right direction for me.

I suggest we give Ian the debugging support he needs to make ms_sh a mature
tool.

Bob Rager