Archives
Archives
| From: | "Marcelo Góes" <vanquirius@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: tcsh vs. csh, removal of the latter | ||
| Date: | Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:33:54 | ||
| Message-Id: | 9e83288a0601280930s214b210cm60df2e216e0d44dc@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: tcsh vs. csh, removal of the latter by Grobian |
||
| 1 | On 1/28/06, Grobian <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > The question here now actually is: "is csh worth the hassle, or not?" |
| 4 | > My opinion is that it is not. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | csh_is_not_worth_it++; |
| 7 | It is causing trouble and not adding functionality. Unless there are |
| 8 | cases where tcsh is not backwards compatible, I say it is a good |
| 9 | riddance. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | -- |
| 12 | Marcelo Góes |
| 13 | marcelogoes@×××××.com |
| 14 | vanquirius@g.o |
| 15 | |
| 16 | -- |
| 17 | gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: tcsh vs. csh, removal of the latter | Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |