Re: ash vs. bash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:09:02 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 08:13:09PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Can you explain why one would want an interactive shell doing
>> non-interactive work and vice versa? To be honest, I never really got the
>> logic of having scripting build into an interactive shell since they serve
>> two different purposes.
>So where can I download a version of bash that doesn't do interactive work?
>I only use it for scripting, and tcsh for interactive work (but never
>for scripting).
>Do you see how silly this argument is yet?
No. Because now I have to ask why there *ISN'T* a version of bash with
just the scripting and all of the nice interactive parts ripped out. Or, to
put it another way...
I use zsh for my interactive work, never scripting. I use perl for my
scripting, never my interactive work. Don't see perl with an interactive
shell wrapped around it, do you? :P
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBN5P3WXpf7K2LbpnFEQJisACg8tt0HAIiDaOnOJHi49IVCB39agMAnR3k
NoP3/1M8SJqyNxQyYvYcf2yK
=QaP+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: