Talk:rc (Unix shell)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rc (Unix shell) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | Es (Unix shell) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 March 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Rc (Unix shell). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | On 13 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Rc to rc (Unix shell). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move
editRC 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)
Survey
edit- 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)
Fonts
editThe 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)
,,More dynamic piping´´
editHow 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)
Requested move 13 May 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Killarnee (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Rc → Rc (Unix shell) – (and redirect rc to RC) Not primary topic by pageviews or long-term significance (not prominent in search results on Google Scholar/Books). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support many other uses are proper nouns but at least could be searched with lower case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)