[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ash vs. bash

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:09:02 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

>On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 08:13:09PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>     Can you explain why one would want an interactive shell doing
>> non-interactive work and vice versa?  To be honest, I never really got the
>> logic of having scripting build into an interactive shell since they serve
>> two different purposes.

>So where can I download a version of bash that doesn't do interactive work?
>I only use it for scripting, and tcsh for interactive work (but never
>for scripting).

>Do you see how silly this argument is yet?

    No.  Because now I have to ask why there *ISN'T* a version of bash with
just the scripting and all of the nice interactive parts ripped out.  Or, to
put it another way...

    I use zsh for my interactive work, never scripting.  I use perl for my
scripting, never my interactive work.  Don't see perl with an interactive
shell wrapped around it, do you?  :P

- -- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc


Reply to: