Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!munnari!moncskermit!basser!wacsvax!swanee!gustav
From: gustav@swanee.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: System V Job Control
Message-ID: <319@swanee.OZ>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 08:13:24 EST
Article-I.D.: swanee.319
Posted: Mon Mar 30 08:13:24 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 13:08:09 EST
References: <422@yabbie.rmit.oz> <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> <5083@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <354@gssc.UUCP>
Organization: El. & El. Eng., Uni. of Western Australia
Lines: 16
Keywords: job control, ksh, csh, shl
Summary: ksh & csh????

In article <354@gssc.UUCP>, jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) writes:
> 
> while we are on the subject of System V with BSD enhancements, maybe somebody
> could come up with a shell that combines ksh with csh.  i really like ksh's
> ability to edit scripts, but i wish to heck it had !$.  (and while you're at
> it, make it run in about 15K and as fast as native assembler code. =) )

Good God! No, the whole advantage of ksh is that it DOES NOT LOOK LIKE
csh but instead it is upwardly compatible with (standard) Bourne
shell. At the same time it provides most (or may be even all)
functions offered by csh, although sometimes you have to do things in
a somewhat different way to achieve the same effect. Definitely,
combining csh and ksh is a BAD idea.

   ARPA :    gustav%swanee.oz@seismo.css.gov
   UUCP :    ...!{seismo,mcvax,ucb-vision,uks}!munnari!swanee.oz!gustav