gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA (05/14/84)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA> test(1) is built into the current Bourne shell (although expr(1) isn't yet). Perhaps a better use of time instead of converting sh scripts to csh would be to install a newer Bourne shell.
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (05/16/84)
# In response to my request for a sh -> csh translator, I have already received two letters asking `WHY would you want to do that?' and now I find that question posted to the net, so perhaps I can forstall a deluge. But first, a slight flame: I guess you are all trying to be helpful warning me against the evils of csh, but THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION! I found this as annoying as asking about a good truffle shop and being asked `Why would you eat chocolate? It has caffiene in it! ...' and so on. Annoying. Questioning people's preferences is pointless. Now, why csh? Because the particular script I want to translate is heavily into using the test(1) and expr(1) commands, which are already built-in to csh. Yes, there will be overhead with a csh script start-up, reading ~/.cshrc and all, but this will be offset by the numerous calls to test and expr that I won't be using. (As Kernighan & Pike point out, judicious use of sh's `case' construct will avoid having to call test(1) in some cases -- for pattern matching/string comparison -- but I've already done that as much as possible). I generally prefer the speed of sh scripts and resort to csh for instances like I have described above (though my login shell is csh, nonetheless). I believe we've already had a round of `csh vs sh' before, and I don't wish to provoke another one.