Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsm!nsw
From: nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Pipes
Message-ID: <1990Jun7.215928.3826@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 7 Jun 90 21:59:28 GMT
References: <136735@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Jun6.104643.15176@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <12391@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Flying Squid Patrol
Lines: 17

In article <12391@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes:
[ ... ]
>Well, even AmigaShell has better line editing than most UNIX shells.

For those using System V, there's ksh, which supports vi and emacs line
editing.  In an ideal world, one's shell should used the same type of line
editing as one's editor.  I use vi (go ahead, flame me ;-).  I use vi editing
mode in ksh.  "Most" UNIX shells might be lacking in line editing, but
everyone I know uses ksh, so from where I stand the point is moot.

I still await an Amiga shell that offers vi editing mode.  Anyone know of one?

                                      - Neil

--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
Neil Weinstock @ AT&T Bell Labs        //     What was sliced bread
att!edsel!nsw or nsw@edsel.att.com   \X/    the greatest thing since?