Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!unisoft!hoptoad!dasys1!jpr
From: jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: a.out 1> file.out 2> file.err in cs
Message-ID: <7450@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 6 Nov 88 01:08:59 GMT
References: <4470006@hpindda.HP.COM> <216100007@s.cs.uiuc.edu> <596@quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley)
Organization: TANGENT
Lines: 24

In article <596@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>Not that I'm defending the C-shell:  why are the "clobber ok" forms
>>!, >&!, >>! and >>&! when ! is the history character?  Consider
>	echo foo baz			# echos "foo baz"
>	echo ugh >!ec			# echos "ugh foo baz" to "echo"
>A straightforward reading of the section "I/O Redirection" in the Csh
>manual page suggests that the second command should echo "ugh" to a
>file called "ec".  How _does_ one use these forms?

	echo ugh >!ec		# invokes history search for a command
				# starting with the letters "ec"

	echo ugh >! ec		# if noclobber is set, will allow over-
				# writing an existing file called "ec"

I much prefer to redefine the history characters to be "," for history
invocation (which also avoids having to escape bang-pathnames), and "="
for string substitution.

Or strings substitution, in O'Keefe's case. :-)
-- 
Jean-Pierre Radley		Honi soit		jpr@dasys1.UUCP
New York, New York		qui mal			...!hombre!jpradley!jpr
CIS: 76120,1341			y pense			...!hombre!trigere!jpr