Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!rutgers!att!alberta!edm!rroot
From: rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: csh on minix
Message-ID: <3285@edm.UUCP>
Date: 30 Sep 88 22:13:51 GMT
References: <5870006@hpcvca.HP.COM>
Organization: Unexsys Systems Inc., Edmonton,AB.
Lines: 43

From article <5870006@hpcvca.HP.COM>, by charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown):
>>>>::> I want to put csh on my minix.
>>>>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-)
> 
>>- Because they like the way csh does some things (history, for instance).
> 
> This tells me you have never used ksh.  The history in ksh is clearly
> superior to csh.
Only in some ways.  It is sometimes really nice to make arbitrary changes
to history lines but, in most cases I tend to want my history lines more
intact or with few changes.  Csh works fine for that --
It's a lot easier to do things like:
find here -name foo -size -5 -print
 
 (Hmm,  I wanna edit that )
vi ` !! `
  as opposed to KSH:
<esc>kivi `<esc>A`

which would do the same thing.
 It's even worse with KSH when you're doing things over a low-speed (1200bd)
modem.. (KSH ignores the concept of CURSES)
>>- Because they have lots of csh scripts that they'd rather not convert.

> That consists of inserting
> 	#!/bin/csh
> as the first line.  No problem.

unh, that doesn't work if csh hasn't been ported over (that's the reason
for this discussion in the first place).

There is one thing I LIKE about not using CSH: you can 'Mail edm!obed!steve' 
instead of 'edm\!obed\!steve' (I refuse to change the history char
to something reasonable).

One last GOOD thing about csh is the iterative brackets:
  ls -l /usr/man/{a,u}_man/*/{a*,cat.?}

If you're gonna re-invent the shell, at least put THAT in.
-- 
-------------
Stephen Samuel 	  (userzxcv@ualtamts.bitnet   or  alberta!edm!steve)
(Only in Canada, you say??.... Pity!)