Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!mercury.cair.du.edu!diana.cair.du.edu!rwelch From: rwelch@diana.cair.du.edu (RANDY S WELCH) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: ksh 11/16/88e now available in AT&T Toolchest Message-ID: <1990Oct22.053058.20120@mercury.cair.du.edu> Date: 22 Oct 90 05:30:58 GMT References: <1990Sep28.205053.16456@cbnews.att.com> <6465@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <14617@netcom.UUCP> <14815@netcom.UUCP> Sender: news@mercury.cair.du.edu (netnews) Organization: University of Denver Lines: 22 In-Reply-To: feustel@netcom.UUCP's message of 16 Oct 90 00:17:38 GMT What I read was the bash documentation. The features that I saw described made me think more of the C shell than the Bourne Shell. I admit to having been puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the name and the features. Having been originally eager to port BASH to my machine, I lost interest after my initial examination of the documentation mentioned above. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 From a purely user stand point bash does somewhat look like csh ( ksh looking is much closer to the truth... ) Programming wise, sh/ksh. I should know, all our scripts at our site are csh... -randy -- Randy Welch Mail to : ...!ncar!scicom!bldr!randy or rwelch@du.edu Boulder, CO VOICE : 303-442-6717 "Unfortunately, life contains an unavoidable element of unpredictability" -David Lynch "The Angriest Dog in the World"