Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:47:04 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: Michael Schuster <michaelsprivate@gmail.com> Cc: Bernt Hansson <bah@bananmonarki.se>, =?UTF-8?B?SsO4cm4gw4VuZQ==?= <freebsd@jornane.me>, freeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Found possible bug - how to report Message-ID: <CALfReyckGC%2B7%2BKQpdbCmSmCpt9QGWK0AFbqHyy_JEm_y6i1rLg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADqw_gJdoLdwayyq3HzWUJq0vTDFQcAik%2BooVLRyf0=iT8VNCw@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b3948f8-dc6a-af53-4ff5-b73be90884d5@fyrkat.no> <f84f60ff-0cb8-99eb-c78e-57586cd4af20@bananmonarki.se> <CADqw_gJdoLdwayyq3HzWUJq0vTDFQcAik%2BooVLRyf0=iT8VNCw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My understanding was bash was the next gen sh, as tcsh was the next csh.... On 8 July 2016 at 08:04, Michael Schuster <michaelsprivate@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Bernt Hansson <bah@bananmonarki.se> wrote: > > > Csh and tcsh are both sh based. > > > that's a rather surprising statement. Can you support it? (It goes against > most I ever heard about csh - I was under the impression that Bill Joy > wrote csh while at university because he was fed up with how sh worked, but > that may be wrong [too?]). > > Michael > > > -- > Michael Schuster > http://recursiveramblings.wordpress.com/ > recursion, n: see 'recursion' > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReyckGC%2B7%2BKQpdbCmSmCpt9QGWK0AFbqHyy_JEm_y6i1rLg>