Talk:C shell

message: In the criticism's section of csh, though the example of the "if" condition does not work as intended in tcsh (file foo does not contain "bar"), it should be noted that when done with proper "if then endif", then it *does* work as intended. --58.111.178.87 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

message: There are only negative links at the bottom of the page; this is not very NPOV. --Anon
:This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! --Atlant 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've started a section in which I intended to give an overview of the basic capabilities and syntactical style.  It's clearly not finished.  But I42 has raised an objection, claiming that it does not belong here because he feels it's a "how to" section.  I disagree, especially as I envision that the section, even when complete, will only be relatively broad-brush, light on any examples and certainly not offering advice on anything.  If indeed the section ought to be deleted, I'm certainly not going to put more work into writing it before we do that! As in the past, I'd like to hear some discussion, please. Msnicki (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the programming articles don't seem to have much of this type of material (ex. C (programming language) has minimal syntax, capabilities and examples). I started a Wikibook on scripting with C Shell. The format for a wikibook is "freeform" so you can put anything you want there like as many examples as you want. I added a link to the book from www.tcsh.org so the content should get some visibility. Basically if you plan on adding material that it may appear to violate WP:NOTHOWTO I would avoid the headache and work on the book instead. --MarsRover (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section goes through the features of the language explaining the syntax and illustrating it with examples. It is well put together and is very useful, but it is not encyclopedic. The examples in the Design Objectives which compare against C, on the other hand, are encyclopedic because they examine the reason behind the design (although that section currently requires references). I42 (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I42 are we talking about the same things?  The code boxes in the Overview of the Language are not examples.  That's not live code.  They're intended to show the template style, though I concede that I've been thinking they should be reformatted more like the way Joy originally explained the constructs beginning on page 27 of his Introduction to the C shell paper.  I think his typography would make it clearer that we're talking about the constructs in the abstract. Msnicki (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You could be right, MarsRover, that your Wikibook is the better place.  It's mostly a skeleton there so far, but I like what I see. Msnicki (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview of the Language 

message: Thanks for clarifying the differences between C shell and C langauge expressions. I just noticed that BASH like the C language follows the much more intuitive left to right operator associativity that most languages use.  (ex.  echo $((5 - 3 + 2)))   -MarsRover (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thank you for bringing that up!  And thank you for saying something.  I was hoping we'd talk about it.  I thought you'd brought up a pretty interesting point, more of the same suggesting that Joy really didn't understand compiler design when he began building the C shell.  Right associativity is pretty unusual and counter-intuitive.  I doubt it reflects any sort of conscious choice; I bet it just came out that way.  After that, I got curious and verified that the Hamilton csh is left-associative like every other language. Msnicki (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expressions.. not csh's strongest point anymore 

message: I've deliberately indented portions of the article using blockquote, where my intent was make it easy for the eye to scan a long list with descriptions (e.g., all the features for interactive use) and still see it as a single list.  And on a laptop or desktop display, I think it works.  But it doesn't work on a mobile device.  I looked at it on my Droid and it's terrible; you get into the Overview of the language section and there's just too much white space wasted in most highly indented sections, e.g., the i/o redirection operators.
Is there a way to make a blockquote conditional on whether the user is on a mobile device? I'd like to turn off some but not all of them for mobile viewing. Msnicki (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a better answer, so I've removed the blockquoting. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting for mobile devices 

message: It's almost impossible to find a source today that presents the original csh. As discussed above, this article is already assuming that csh = tcsh for most features and purposes, including the infobox. The original csh should be discussed in the (nonexistent right now) history section. This article also fails to say on which systems (if any) the original csh is still shipped today. I suspect the answer is "none". Tcsh vs. csh is not paradigm shift; it's more like ksh93 vs. ksh88. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There really aren't any differences in the language.  Tcsh only adds command completion and command line editing.  If you go look at the source, you'll find they just added a few new source files for that new functionality.  What was there already didn't change.  Further, with rare exceptions, if you type "csh" on most machines, what you get is tcsh.  They really are the same thing, just differing, in effect, by the release level.  Msnicki (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll then change my vote to Neutral; I still think there's enough material for its own article, but a merge seems feasible, and I don't know enough about the shells to offer a solid opinion. -128.117.88.111 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I totally respect your opinion.  I'm still !voting to merge but I definitely wouldn't suggest doing this without a clear consensus in support, including having you on-board, agreeing this is a good idea before we do anything.  In addition to laziness, this is why I hadn't jumped in to start merging them.  You need everyone feeling pretty good about this sort of thing.  Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing to merge with tcsh 

message: Our code examples for both sh and csh are formatted using  ... .  This worked okay for both sh and csh examples until someone changed the formatting rules for bash to make the keywords bold.  This has broken the formatting for the csh examples because only some of the keywords overlap with bash.  I've chased this far enough to find that the <syntaxhighlight> tag invokes the GeSHi Generic Syntax Highlighters, as described at mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight GeSHi and WP:Catalogue of CSS classes.  Source for the GeSHi library is at Sourceforge.
Notice there are .php highlighters defined for nearly everything except csh/tcsh.  It appears to me that the bash.php might quickly be recast as a csh.php formatter with an appropriate set of keywords if there is anyone willing to give it a try.  Msnicki (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, goodie!  There's now lang="csh" colorizer.  Many thanks to Ori Livneh for fixing this in this diff.  Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken syntax highlighting 

message: RJaguar3 has questioned the fair use of the desktop image, :File:TcshAndShScreenCapture.png, that appears at the top of this article arguing,   I created the screenshot about 5 years ago and I've offered my thoughts, explaining why I think it's acceptable.  But I assume anyone is free to weigh in on the issue with their own thoughts.  Msnicki (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of the desktop image questioned 

message: Qwertyus has edited  the Hamilton C shell article, removing a fair amount of content, arguing that the WP:SPS sourcing, e.g., of what the author was thinking, was inappropriate.  The article survived a WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 8#Hamilton C shell in substantially the previous form, drawing a consensus that it was not obviously promotional.  No one at the time voiced criticism of the content.  On that basis, I think the content was fine.  But Qwertyus is correct that I have a WP:COI, declared at that deletion review and also on the article talk page, so  I do need to ask for others' opinions and I must respect your consensus.  I am too close to this.  Msnicki (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User Qwertyus is most likely a twelve-year-old jerk, like so many of the ignorant junior-high-schoolers currently editing wikipedia. As someone who used the Hamilton C Shell on OS/2 for many years, it's pretty apparent to me that this person has not a clue. Ignore him/her/it :) 116.231.74.1 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to a possibly related discussion