Bizarre redirection failure

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

Now you are getting into religion. Like the VI and EMACS religion, the 
shells are also religion among UNIX people. I used to use the C Shell, but 
started to use KSH about 10 years ago or so, and I'm more comfortable with 
the Bourne Shell and its descendents. 
In reality both the modern POSIX shells and the C Shell derivatives are 
good. 
On 30 Apr 2002 at 16:21, John Chambers wrote:

> | I am more comfortable with POSIX shell syntax where
> | foo > fubar 2>&1
> | AFAIK, your syntax should work for the TCSH except maybe don't have a space
> | between the > and the &.
> | make test >& test.log &
> 
> Actually, I didn't type that space. I used >& as usual, and
> the space comes from the history mechanism.
> 
> I do use bash occasionally, but I find (t)csh better as  an
> interactive shell.  Maybe "better" isn't the right word.  I
> find (t)csh somewhat less frustrating than bash or ksh.  It
> takes fewer tries to get things like loops and history refs
> right with the csh clones.  Csh's if and foreach constructs
> are somewhat easier to type and get right the first time.
> 
> (Of course, not everyone types conditionals and  for  loops
> to  an  interactive  shell, probably because it ain't easy.
> I've often been called a showoff for doing such things. ;-)
> 


--
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Associate Director
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9