X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP112B93E985D3C0C52CAC827CED90@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:14:46 +0200
From: Aaron Schneider <notstop AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: length in gawk returns wrong value
References: <loom DOT 20120719T103849-659 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120719092024 DOT GA31055 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20120719T131247-62 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120719113927 DOT GH31055 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CAEhDDbCJyHY-MWPCZ5=OQJFyvohuUU4AFsoPDzFudLQgfb-8Jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <BLU0-SMTP132D949A0B60293ECBEAD2CED90 AT phx DOT gbl> <20120719145544 DOT GL31055 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <BLU0-SMTP1675452B38FDC1ABC528A69CED90 AT phx DOT gbl> <50083976 DOT 8020804 AT hones DOT org DOT uk> <BLU0-SMTP378D15331901273FA4EC87DCED90 AT phx DOT gbl> <50083DA9 DOT 2030104 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <50083DA9.2030104@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 19/07/2012 19:02, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Why bother?  csh syntax is non-standard, and in my opinion, it is ugly
> (others around here disagree, or tcsh would have died long ago, but
> that's a different story - it's mostly people that were on a system that
> picked csh as its default shell long before standardization picked
> Bourne over csh syntax).
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
>

Ok, I understand that you don't have to execute both lang.sh or 
lang.csh; they are executed depending on the shell you have, there is no 
need to run both, in fact they do the same. Default shell will suffice 
and is better for porting scripts.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple