kai@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (10/26/88)
Sorry, you can't direct stdout and stderr to different places with C shell. Patrick Wolfe (pwolfe@kai.com, uunet!kailand!pwolfe)
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu (10/28/88)
Is there any real reason *why* the csh didn't use the Bourne shell notation for file redirection? I find the #> notation simple, clean, and easy to use, whereas the csh version is obtuse and less powerful.
billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) (10/30/88)
In article <216100007@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Is there any real reason *why* the csh didn't use the Bourne shell >notation for file redirection? I find the #> notation simple, clean, >and easy to use, whereas the csh version is obtuse and less powerful. Does anybody out there know to Bill Joy. Maybe you could ask HIM to answer that one! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These are my own opinions! ....!ucsd!celerity!billd
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (11/01/88)
>>Is there any real reason *why* the csh didn't use the Bourne shell >>notation for file redirection? I find the #> notation simple, clean, >>and easy to use, whereas the csh version is obtuse and less powerful. The csh notation preceded the availability of the Bourne shell. By the time Bourne's notation was known, there were already too many users of the >& notation. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,uunet}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (11/01/88)
From: billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) >In article <216100007@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>Is there any real reason *why* the csh didn't use the Bourne shell >>notation for file redirection? I find the #> notation simple, clean, >>and easy to use, whereas the csh version is obtuse and less powerful. > >Does anybody out there know to Bill Joy. Maybe you could ask HIM to >answer that one! I may be wrong but that's ok, consider the consequences... I believe the csh was based on the V6 shell which pre-dated the Bourne shell. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (11/01/88)
>I don't know what the Bourne-shell really does, but the manual SAYS >that the thing preceding > or whatever is a DIGIT. That means that >you can redirect/open descriptors 0..9. The manual is, apparently, telling the truth.
billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) (11/02/88)
In article <4060@encore.UUCP> bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) writes: >From: billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) >>In article <216100007@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>> >>>Is there any real reason *why* the csh didn't use the Bourne shell >>>notation for file redirection? I find the #> notation simple, clean, >>>and easy to use, whereas the csh version is obtuse and less powerful. >> >>Does anybody out there know to Bill Joy. Maybe you could ask HIM to ^^ typo >>answer that one! > >I may be wrong but that's ok, consider the consequences... > >I believe the csh was based on the V6 shell which pre-dated the Bourne >shell. > > -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| This could be wrong but I am basing my belief of authorship on the Berkeley 4.2 manual page for csh which says: AUTHOR William Joy. Job control and directory stack features first implemented by J.E. Kulp of I.I.A.S.A, Laxenburg Austria, with different syntax than that used now. But then Berkeley manuals have lied to me before :-). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am no Richard Nixon! ....!ucsd!celerity!billd
rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov (Root Boy Jim) (11/03/88)
From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@quintus.uucp>
Not that I'm defending the C-shell: why are the "clobber ok" forms
>!, >&!, >>! and >>&! when ! is the history character? Consider
echo foo baz # echos "foo baz"
echo ugh >!ec # echos "ugh foo baz" to "echo"
A straightforward reading of the section "I/O Redirection" in the Csh
manual page suggests that the second command should echo "ugh" to a
file called "ec". How _does_ one use these forms?
Either quote `!' with `\', or follow it with a space.
Reread the section on history substitution.
BTW, the 4.2 BSD manual mentions the solution to the original question,
but for some reason it was dropped from the 4.3 manual. It still lives
in the Sun manual, but is absent from Sequent.
I don't see why sh style redirection couldn't be added as well.
(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell (301) 975-5688
<rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov> or <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa>
Careful with that VAX Eugene!jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) (11/06/88)
In article <596@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Not that I'm defending the C-shell: why are the "clobber ok" forms >>!, >&!, >>! and >>&! when ! is the history character? Consider > echo foo baz # echos "foo baz" > echo ugh >!ec # echos "ugh foo baz" to "echo" >A straightforward reading of the section "I/O Redirection" in the Csh >manual page suggests that the second command should echo "ugh" to a >file called "ec". How _does_ one use these forms? echo ugh >!ec # invokes history search for a command # starting with the letters "ec" echo ugh >! ec # if noclobber is set, will allow over- # writing an existing file called "ec" I much prefer to redefine the history characters to be "," for history invocation (which also avoids having to escape bang-pathnames), and "=" for string substitution. Or strings substitution, in O'Keefe's case. :-) -- Jean-Pierre Radley Honi soit jpr@dasys1.UUCP New York, New York qui mal ...!hombre!jpradley!jpr CIS: 76120,1341 y pense ...!hombre!trigere!jpr
marc@monet.Berkeley.EDU (Marc Teitelbaum) (11/07/88)
I believe it was a PWB shell that first introduced some of the csh semantics (back when variables where one letter long and the shell was a single source file - sh.c). Any old-timers remember? Marc ------------------------------- Marc Teitelbaum +1-415-643-6448 457 Evans Hall Computer Systems Research Group, CSRG / DEC University of California Berkeley, CA 94720
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (11/09/88)
>I believe it was a PWB shell that first introduced some of the csh >semantics (back when variables where one letter long and the shell >was a single source file - sh.c). Any old-timers remember? I don't, but I suspect "...!mips!mash" does, since he wrote the PWB shell. (John?)