Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfcdonn!donn
From: donn@hpfcdonn.HP.COM (Donn Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Re: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?
Message-ID: <5980021@hpfcdonn.HP.COM>
Date: 16 May 88 14:47:31 GMT
References: <2601@usceast.UUCP>
Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co.
Lines: 24

At least HP supports ksh with their product (biased posting warning :-) ).

Actually if it were properly named it would be tksh (has some
of the TENEX filename completion stuff plus expands $NAME at the same
time; wonderful for editing environment variables: just expand
the statement PATH=$PATH and then edit the result!)  Our csh is
also tcsh.

Internal hue-and-cry got ksh supported.

Of the 3 major shells (sh, csh, ksh) I strongly believe that ksh is
the best user interface, and that it should be widely available.
It betters everything that csh does, and is sh compatible thus
allowing highly portable scripts.  You need only learn sh to write
scripts and still use a friendly interface.

$_ is the same thing as !$ for keyboard input (and something else
to the command that's running).

My contribution to the debate: don't worry about csh; get ksh in the
package instead.  If you don't believe me, try it a while.

Donn Terry
HP, Ft. Collins