🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 3 Jan 90 22:36:22 GMT
   From: cwns1!chet@usenet.ins.cwru.edu  (Chet Ramey)
   Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
   References: <5877@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, <1990Jan3.001743.3636@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, <1990Jan3.183419.2476@smsc.sony.com>
   Sender: bug-bash-request@prep.ai.mit.edu

   > = David Elliott
   >> = Me

   I don't think >& should have been in there in the first place.  It looks
   like something different to people used to sh syntax, like it should have a
   digit or a `-' at the end.  &> is barely acceptable.  I think Brian threw
   it in as an afterthought, but you'd have to ask him. 

Actually, I made &> as a forethought, and then afterwards realized that
I could hack >& so that it could work.  Since >& doesn't preclude the
standard usage, I added it to (mistakenly I now feel) appease the Csh
users.

Bash has a few features reverse engineered from Csh that I felt were
generally useful.  These include pushd and popd, ! history expansion and
operators, and curly brace expansion.

   >If David Korn had added csh-style history and editing syntax and
   >curly braces to ksh, ksh would have taken over.  Instead, ksh was
   >kept "pure", and potential users stayed away.

If David Korn had made a free shell, starting from scratch, I think more
people would be using and supporting it.  Instead, he worked for AT&T,
who are not famous for giving software away.  The distribubility (<--
nice word, huh?) of Bash makes it the choice for me of shells that have
job control.

Brian