Talk:rc (Unix shell)

RC royial cycle

rc shell → rc … Rationale: Just like mk its the only thing that is actually called rc … eeemess 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support eeemess 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:Move, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 14:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Royal Crown ("RC") Cola. --Johnny (Cuervo) 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The fonts that used for code examples, which supposedly should be fixed-width (because they use either <TT>/</TT> or <PRE>/</PRE> constructs), are rendered just like normal fonts. I looked at the page source, and it really has some stylesheets that do explictly command that bogus behavior. How do we get rid of those bogus stylesheets? Pappires (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:Didn't look at the source, but FWIW, it renders fine (i.e. in a fixed width font) for me. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How are the examples in that part of the article ,,more dynamic´´ than what Bash supports?

Yes, their syntax is simpler.

Yes, feel free to say ,,in rc, dynamic piping is much simpler.´´

No, rc is not ,,more powerful´´ in that aspect. Read bash(1) and stop fanboying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.207.116 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

: The shell in question here is sh(1). In any case, reading bash(1) is a daunting task. It is longer than rc's entire source code by a wide margin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.161.132 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)