Category talk:Bash: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(Bash: language or implementation?)
 
(see also...)
Line 2: Line 2:


I'm sick of changing Bash entries to Unix Shell + {works with|Bash}. It seems visitors to this site expect Bash to be its own language. Whichever way we choose, we ought to clean up the other choice to match. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sick of changing Bash entries to Unix Shell + {works with|Bash}. It seems visitors to this site expect Bash to be its own language. Whichever way we choose, we ought to clean up the other choice to match. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:In addition to this category, there's also [[Bourne Again SHell]] and [[Bourne Shell]].
:Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like '''Category:Bourne shell''', and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- [[User:Eriksiers|Erik Siers]] 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:41, 22 September 2010

Bash: language or implementation?

I'm sick of changing Bash entries to Unix Shell + {works with|Bash}. It seems visitors to this site expect Bash to be its own language. Whichever way we choose, we ought to clean up the other choice to match. --IanOsgood 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to this category, there's also Bourne Again SHell and Bourne Shell.
Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like Category:Bourne shell, and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- Erik Siers 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)