From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 22:40:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0E91065672 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:40:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A208FC16 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-143-131.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.143.131]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787081E62B; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:40:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id p1OMeiId001638; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:40:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:40:44 +0100 From: Polytropon To: Rob Farmer Message-Id: <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <4D61599E.4040008@gmail.com> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:40:46 -0000 On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer wrote: > (New) people will still copy and paste commands into an interactive > tcsh, so it is a good idea to be compatible when posting stuff to the > mailing lists, etc. if possible. There was something on the ports@ > list a while back, about PRs for new ports, where this came up. That's why it is "a nice tradition" to indicate which kind of shell a command should be issued to, for example % set x = 100; foreach y ( .... ) >& boo_$x which is for C shell (tcsh), versus $ Q=1; W=2; [ ${Q} .... ] && meow `ls` < hi.there which is for (ba)sh. It get's interesting when talking about commands to be issued as root. :-) # pwd > I've read it before. Who hasn't? I haven't. :-) > And I find it unconvincing, since it > is just a list of shortcomings. If those shortcomings don't affect me, > why do I care? The article basically concentrates on shell PROGRAMMING, and I agree that programming scripts is not the biggest stength of the C shell. On the other hand, it's a very good interactive command line interpreter (as mentioned before) that is, in some regards (mainly driven by very individual taste), superior to the hyped bash. But it's also worth mentioning that there are even better shells which combine "the best of both worlds", like zsh, a shell that many professionals seem to prefer over the other ones mentioned. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...