From: ins217t@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew J. Cosgriff !) Subject: Re: a shell idea Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:23:44 GMT
jwinstea@fenris.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
>In article <1e8m7pINN51i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>i was thinking that one could create a "super" shell which understood
>>the syntax of all the major shells: csh, tcsh, ksh, sh, bash, ash, etc.
>>of course, size would be affected, but imagine the power, not to
>>mention the end of all the bickering.
>Um, why? I would much rather have five binaries for tcsh, ksh, bash,
>rc, and some other shell on my system that I could trim down if I
>needed (like delete tcsh since I wouldn't use it...) rather than some
>monolithic beast that contained features I really don't need.
>Small is beautiful.
Hear Hear !
It's the small programs that you put together to make big programs(via shell
scripts) that really makes UNIX something different to the "Let's reinvent the wheel"
syndrome of DOS...
And besides, can you imagine all the syntax clashes ?
you'd have to have a "csh" mode for csh/tcsh, "sh" mode for sh/ksh/bash,
etc....
Enjoy !
Cos !
--
Andrew J. Cosgriff ! ins217t@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au
ins217t@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au
cos@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
"Language is a virus from outer space" - William S. Burroughs