On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:11:57PM -0600, Jay Kline wrote: > On Thursday 03 January 2002 10:10 am, you wrote: > > I assume your trying this in bash as your shell. If you are at > > all familar with tcsh you might want to use tcsh, since ~ works > > as expected in tcsh. The following script worked for me. > > There has been an essay floating around the net about why the c shell is a > bad choice for scripting. I read it a while ago, but dont remember where its > posted (Im sure a quick google search will turn it up). Does anyone know if > tcsh falls into the same pitfalls? Yes, I've seen the essay and tcsh as an extension of csh has many of the same problems. I use tcsh as my interactive shell, but for the most part I agree that [t]csh should be avoided for scripts. I have a few simple csh scripts, but for the most part I use straight Bourne shell scripts. I also avoid Bash extensions for shell scripts because the scripts are then less portable (I've got accounts on several systems that don't have Bash) and by the point I get to that kind of complexity Perl is usually a better choice. Anyway, since there is a standard (though ugly) Bourne way to it, tcsh is probably a bad idea. -- Jim Crumley |Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List (TCLUG) crumley at fields.space.umn.edu |Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota Ruthless Debian Zealot |http://www.mn-linux.org/ Never laugh at live dragons |Dmitry's free,who's next? http://faircopyright.org