Re: priorities
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> tcsh (people who remember what it is know how to install it)
>> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
>> provoke WTF reactions if not there."
> Which isn't a requirement for "standard", but hey...
Yeah, it's the definition of important, and I could make an argument that
having /bin/csh in important would be justified. But on the other hand,
it's bad for scripting and probably should generally be discouraged, so.
Standard seems like a reasonable compromise. :)
> I find it pretty surprising that somewhere between 1 in 8 systems
> (vote/max(inst)) and 1 in 5 systems ((vote+old)/vote) still have tcsh
> used recently tbh.
Up until fairly recently, it was the only interactive shell with decent
programmable completion other than zsh. (bash's has been substandard
compared to tcsh for many years, although I think in recent years it's
gotten a lot closer.) And zsh is a little intimidating to get started
with.
I still use tcsh as an interactive shell in large part because I can't
figure out how to duplicate certain behaviors that my fingers are very
used to in bash, although it's probably possible at this point. bash used
to have a hard time with stuff like:
complete pubswtrawl 'n%--recheck%D:/afs/.ir/pubsw/ADMIN/links/%'
complete cvs 'p/1/(add commit diff log remove status update)/'
>> > time (???)
>> Likewise. time is a standard Unix program.
> And which is a built-in on bash, tcsh and zsh, so doesn't seem terribly
> useful most of the time... (not dash though)
True.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: