simonl@bnr.ca (Simon-Cheuk Leung) (03/08/91)
I have a question on C-shell, if I do the following,
set item = ( search 'find / -name "\!*" -print' )
I can set this item without getting any complain, but it doesn't allow me
echoing $item[2]. How can I echo the original $item[2] in this case?
(include \!*)
Any comments?
Thanks in advance ....
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| Simon C. F. Leung | Bitnet: simonl@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-9077 |
| Bell-Northern Research.| UUCP : ..uunet!bnrgate!bcara222!simonl |
|__Ottawa, Canada________|________________________________________________|
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| Simon C. F. Leung | Bitnet: simonl@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-9077 |
| Bell-Northern Research.| UUCP : ..uunet!bnrgate!bcara222!simonl |
|__Ottawa, Canada________|________________________________________________| tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (03/08/91)
From the keyboard of simonl@bnr.ca (Simon-Cheuk Leung):
:
: I have a question on C-shell, if I do the following,
:
: set item = ( search 'find / -name "\!*" -print' )
:
: I can set this item without getting any complain, but it doesn't allow me
: echoing $item[2]. How can I echo the original $item[2] in this case?
: (include \!*)
You need to either enclose it in double quotes:
echo "$item[2]"
or turn off globbing with "set noglob" or at least the whining with
"set nonomatch". You will lose the backslash, but that's ok.
What's not ok is that you use the csh, which is a royal pain the neck, and
you shouldn't be using it for didly squat. I know "should" is a strong
word that we "shouldn't" use, but so be it. Bill Joy has a plane of hell
reserved all to himself because of the csh. Use a real shell, or perl, but
break yourself of the csh sickness before it becomes terminal.
--tomramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey) (03/09/91)
From article <1991Mar08.142000.27880@convex.com>, by tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen): > From the keyboard of simonl@bnr.ca (Simon-Cheuk Leung): > : > : I have a question on C-shell, if I do the following, > ... > What's not ok is that you use the csh, which is a royal pain the neck, and > you shouldn't be using it for didly squat. I know "should" is a strong > word that we "shouldn't" use, but so be it. Bill Joy has a plane of hell > reserved all to himself because of the csh. Use a real shell, or perl, but > break yourself of the csh sickness before it becomes terminal. Which shell, then? -Ed
asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar8.163037.18947@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU> ramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey) writes: >From article <1991Mar08.142000.27880@convex.com>, by tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen): >> From the keyboard of simonl@bnr.ca (Simon-Cheuk Leung): >> : >> : I have a question on C-shell, if I do the following, >> ... > >> What's not ok is that you use the csh, which is a royal pain the neck, and >> Use a real shell, or perl, but >> break yourself of the csh sickness before it becomes terminal. > >Which shell, then? bash!!!!!!! :-) > >-Ed --------- sar.casm \'sa:r-.kaz-*m\ \sa:r-'kas-tik\ \-ti-k(*-)le-\ n [F sarcasme, fr. LL sarcasmos, fr. Gk sarkasmos, fr. sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, fr. sark-, sarx flesh; akin to Av thwar*s to cut] 1: a cutting, hostile, or contemptuous remark : GIBE 2: the use of caustic or ironic language - sar.cas.tic aj ### ## Courtesy of Bruce Varney ### # aka -> The Grand Master # asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu ### ##### # PUCC ### # ;-) # # ;'> # ##
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (03/09/91)
From the keyboard of ramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey): :Which shell, then? One that's sh compatible. sh itself is pretty bare-bones, but still better csh by a parsec or three. There's also the BRL shell, ksh, or bash. --tom
byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar08.180955.12077@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >From the keyboard of ramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey): >:Which shell, then? > >One that's sh compatible. sh itself is pretty bare-bones, but still >better csh by a parsec or three. There's also the BRL shell, ksh, or bash. > >--tom If you want a shell that's slightly less bare-bones than sh, but still pretty tiny, consider rc, the at&t plan 9 shell. I've created my own public implementation of this shell. See the relevant articles in comp.archives, comp.lang.misc and comp.unix.shell. (Gee, that's this group!) Byron. -- "Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together."
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (03/09/91)
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >From the keyboard of ramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey): >:Which shell, then? >One that's sh compatible. sh itself is pretty bare-bones, but still >better csh by a parsec or three. There's also the BRL shell, ksh, or bash. has anyone looked at the rc-shell (plan 9 shell lookalike) announced recently? the posting said it's like C but clean/easy/small etc, and has a yacc-generated parser. sounds like a real alternative to csh programming. (btw: sh programming also isn't what i'd call terrific :-) -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public UNIX source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) (03/09/91)
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: | From the keyboard of ramsey@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU (Ed Ramsey): | :Which shell, then? | One that's sh compatible. sh itself is pretty bare-bones, but still | better csh by a parsec or three. There's also the BRL shell, ksh, or | bash. There is also my personal favorite: ash, which can be found in volume 19 of your local comp.sources.unix archive site. Ash has shell functions (with arguments done right), the usual builtin commands, a simple but usefull form of command history, and it supports BSD job control (you need to make a small change to get it to support job control as a login shell). It's small, fast, and (IMHO) pretty damn nice; I've been using it as my login shell for more than a year now with no problems. If you want full command-line editing and suchlike, there's a sepperate general front end called 'atty' (it's also available in your local c.s.unix archives). -- "That way, it won't matter so much which architecture "wins" (except to MIPS and Moto), which was most definitely NOT the case in the 68k vx. x86 conflict. The 88k and the Rx000 both are CPUs that I can use without holding my nose." - Alan Lovejoy cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks