From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 25 00:39:23 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 221BB106566B for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:39:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 839273@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yi0-f54.google.com (mail-yi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C193E8FC1A for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yib19 with SMTP id 19so607092yib.13 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LhCw5oUrJw2bTyUbZTZISOH/5zgisUyjQPKMPP3KbLQ=; b=OjDVLxHfAJhG7y1+49HFN0N2bGdNKHSGNQ6qXe0CcasfBsS/AmGN1/byj16WuOebt9 rbMdZKDSI2TmXyoJA10ZGSzXzNWX/dqYJGnPKhQNjr7cymXT9QJiTxK8Po16tg8Mbwf8 oMONKjmgF09I8OPChS/QnqIDEVul6Azx/Q32E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=IenHhCLtmjtvYPdcCs6AWvh82XGwoM/0ySzPGCZXB/jcT9webznp97U9P/EPazSaEv ENrIK+BLNQhznqTiVB98345f4dvgOzAZ5BB7BoyHxWjfK/sshNc3XPzH27vCvqPNRpqc Vwl9ov2XtZ8x2keSm0xpB2pkmuNG1WMwnpkx4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.145.9 with SMTP id s9mr2766045ybd.125.1298594361570; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:21 -0800 (PST) Sender: 839273@gmail.com Received: by 10.150.215.21 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110224235243.GA14035@guilt.hydra> References: <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> <20110224232404.GA13838@guilt.hydra> <20110224235243.GA14035@guilt.hydra> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:09:21 -0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VKxykRJJIWQ13zGbGyKGOqZc9Cg Message-ID: From: Andres Perera To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Chad Perrin Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: 839273@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:39:23 -0000 On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote= : >> > >> > So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete >> > (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's >> > better because I like it." >> >> you are an obtuse person > > You have an attitude problem. =C2=A0I will only hold that against *you*, > though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one > that is worth the time I spent reading it. > >> >> the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code > > Good for him. let's pretend you know better by addressing your stupid responses > >> >> the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing >> their efforts on something solid > > I take it "wonky" is some technical term with which I am not familiar. % if (0) echo > file % ls file but of course, this is old as hell and was already linked by someone else in this thread ie, you're dodging problems > >> >> *you* are the one that's dodging questions > > Really? =C2=A0What question did I dodge? =C2=A0If you repeat it, and it i= s not > completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. > >> >> history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh >> thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time > > What does that have to do with it? =C2=A0I never said otherwise. then what other feature in tcsh would leverage against modern shells? why d= o i have to ask you this given that the query was implied a long time ago by more than one person? > >> >> every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition >> like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) > > I guess that depends on how you define "feature" -- but I don't use csh > without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable > to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. actually, it does apply because ls-F is a tcsh builtin, not csh do you even know the slightest thing about the shell you use? this information isn't exactly hidden, on the contrary, it's right there in the manual and before you even think about it, yes using both interchangeably is correct because in freebsd, csh is a link to tcsh another display of ignorance and big words without knowing about the subjec= t > > Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. in a unix context, more features, specially those that overlap, are regarded as unwanted. no, i'm not going to explain orthogonality and its benefits to you -- it should be basic knowledge by now > > >> >> what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? "it's faster >> than ls(1)", which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear >> case of over-optimization > > Maybe so. > > >> >> what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin >> partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition > > I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. =C2=A0"They both have > instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that > already exists in standard utilities." =C2=A0Well, great. =C2=A0I'm not s= ure how > that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. since i pointed out more than feature overlap, this is a weak strawman > > >> >> it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this >> seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, >> like most of the people on this thread > > I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say > things like this. what i can point out is that responding to each sentence out of context is very annoying. if ls-F being over-optimization recieves a "maybe so" qualification, then this is clearly a contradiction a noob accidentaly a tcsh > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >