Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: csh vs sh (was: fixing rm *)
Message-ID: <845@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 88 08:36:03 GMT
References: <1812@ndsuvax.UUCP> <717@quintus.UUCP> <6518@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <723@quintus.UUCP> <6550@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <1457@unisoft.UUCP> <754@quintus.UUCP> <114@gsgpyr.hac.com>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 16

In article <114@gsgpyr.hac.com> jrich@devnet4.UUCP (john richardson) writes:
>In article <754@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>Indeed you are.  You're even better off not writing Csh scripts.
>Has there been a past discussion of writing scripts for csh vs. sh?

I love the C-shell for interactive work, and feel as though I'm in a
straitjacket when I have to use the Bourne shell.  But to quote from
the BUGS section of the manual page for csh(1):

     Quoting conventions are contradictory and confusing.

     Although robust enough for general use, adventures into  the
     esoteric  periphery  of  the  C-Shell  may reveal unexpected
     quirks.

That's rather a damning confession.