From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1374138D11 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60DBE14010; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47983E0934 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEeDA-0003ZR-L6 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:56:00 +0200 Received: from pc123.math.cas.cz ([147.231.88.123]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:56:00 +0200 Received: from martin by pc123.math.cas.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:56:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone else having a problem with bash? Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20150706100117.0d993a04@a6> <559E5D43.2070800@gmail.com> <20150709124824.10f75958@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <559e62cc.a673980a.c356c.657e@mx.google.com> <20150709170743.4d4ef6be@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <55a3848d.os/OdBhuCW4lsITI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc123.math.cas.cz User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: d2d0339a-71d6-4c67-a579-887f62148b15 X-Archives-Hash: 46a457f872c2246bc1d72c63fb3dea43 Joerg Schilling wrote: > Martin Vaeth wrote: >> >> This is not true, either: Although finally bash took some of the >> features of zsh (arrays, regular expression matching, etc.) there >> are still many features missing in bash (extended globbing, many >> variable and array operations etc.) > > AFAIK, this was not introduced by zsh but by ksh. Yes, you are right: To be historically correct, one should call many of them "ksh features". However, fact is that zsh *has* almost all ksh features (with mainly identical syntax) while bash still lacks a lot of them (and for others it has a more cumbersome syntax). This might change in the long run: as mentioned, bash has adopted a lot of ksh/zsh features over the years, but a lot are still missing, and ksh/zsh has evolved meanwhile. For instance, bash now finally has also a completion mechanism which zsh had much longer before. Moreover, my impression is that bash's mechanism is more in the spirit to zsh's first attempt (zshcompctl) while since quite a while zsh has "obsoleted" this mechanism and replaced by a much superior/flexible one (zshcompsys).