csh problem involving nested ifs?

[Peter da Silva]

Might I make a request. Would people who post news *AND* send mail please
*SAY SO*?

Anyway, I bitched about how crummy CSH is for scripts...

In article <20243 at adm.BRL.MIL>, rbj at dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim) writes:
> I disagree. CSH is much more natural to use than SH. The constructs are
> more natural.

The constructs are more conventional, but they sure don't match UNIX
filter semantics very well. What do you mean by "natural"?

> In csh, I don't have to resort to `expr' and `test'
> because these are builtin.

In SH I don't have to worry about my control structures screwing up,
because they're parsed instead of being implemented as commands. CSH
control structures remind me more of assembler macros.

> The only things I see SH is good for are:

> 	1) portability - sh exists everywhere
> 	2) trivial scripts - starts faster
> 	3) complex file redirection - but how often do you do 3> anyway?

Not often, but I do 2> quite a bit.

> 	4) shell fns - neat
> 	5) piping to `for' and `while' - but how often?

(piping, redirecting, etc...)

All the time. This construct:

generate_a_list_of_file_names |
  while read FNAME
  do
    do_something_with FNAME
  done

is second nature. And it's impossible in csh without massive inconvenience.
By comparison, having TEST and EXPR builtin is a minor optimisation.

> Of course, newer SH's and KSH help quite a bit.

For interactive use, maybe. I still prefer CSH history.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter at ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Th-th-th-that's all folks...
Personal: peter at sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  -- Mel Blanc
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |     May 30 1908 - Jul 10 1989