Re: csh question: foreach
From: Colin B. (cbigam_at_somewhereelse.nucleus.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:12:09 GMT
In comp.unix.solaris Stephane CHAZELAS <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 2004-10-20, 18:35(+00), Colin B.:
>> ksh vs. bash (i.e. the "sh-like shells")
>> ksh is /bin/sh compatible. bash isn't. End of story.
> Could you please expand on that? Note that "/bin/sh" can be a
> wide variety of things including ksh, bash, zsh, a ash
> derivative or even in some rare cases now a Bourne shell (which
> is the case though on comp.unix.solaris where this is
> crossposted to).
Fair enough. Since I spend most of my time on Solaris, I tend to use
/bin/sh as shorthand for bourne shell.
> ksh is no more nor less compatible with the Bourne shell than
> bash if it's what you meant.
No, that's not what I meant at all. Try this:
$ echo "error!"
To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to make bash behave the same
way as sh in this case. No, it's not posix-compliant, but it IS used, and
is expected. ksh and zsh both can deal gracefully with it--why not bash?
> csh is as much far behind tcsh as let's say ksh is behind zsh.
> I'd bet you never used neither tcsh nor zsh.
I have used both of them. The end result is still that ksh does everything
I need as a command-line shell, and does it efficiently. If I need something
more powerful than ksh (rarely), I start to look at perl.
> Talking of "/bin/sh" syntax nowadays doesn't make any sense
> (from a Unix point of view).
OK then. ksh and zsh can both be invoked to behave exactly the same as
the bourne shell. bash can not, unless that's changed quite recently.