Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:03 -0600 From: Gary Gatten <Ggatten@waddell.com> To: 'Polytropon' <freebsd@edvax.de>, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> In-Reply-To: <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102201027170.56885@wonkity.com> <4D61599E.4040008@gmail.com> <AANLkTinJKcy8NyFzW9=6yKEY%2BF_payQVM108_=B7Gyjr@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T210222-768@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTinQ4MMwWq77k1t-SwqE%2BzPep6VCNS9AKdT_H08b@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T214917-136@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTik88V5Bb2BWM0Kpv3rWfek9_%2BgjqmEt6UbsVjpS@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T220407-811@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTikAB--0Hrw76cbdzgfmeJMPt_N7isaw%2Byn_-QMn@mail.gmail.com> <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@f= reebsd.org] On Behalf Of Polytropon Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:13 PM To: Chad Perrin Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:25 -0700, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer <rfarmer@predatorlabs.ne= t> wrote: > > > > > > I've read it before. Who hasn't?=20 > >=20 > > I haven't. :-) >=20 > While reading it, just keep this in mind: >=20 > It's about "programming" in csh. It's not about using csh as an > interactive user shell. People who try to use it as "proof" that we > should not use csh as an interactive user shell don't get it. >From my personal experience, I know that the C shell is not the best shell for scripting, but one of the best interactive shells. The article proves the first part of my statement to be quite... accurate, as the C shell really has some specific syntax - redirection and grouping are typical issues. But well, that's not a big problem as the C shell does not claim to be command-line compatible to (ba)sh. > I see from this you are not prone to confuse programming with an > interactive user shell. I'm old enough not to be cheated that easily. :-) Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It does ever= ything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It doesn't require an= y upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any memory or other re= sources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; it just "magically" wo= rks. There you have it. <font size=3D"1"> <div style=3D'border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0i= n 0in 1.0pt 0in'> </div> "This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system." </font>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F>