Xref: utzoo comp.unix.shell:694 comp.unix.questions:26436
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!convex.COM
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Questions about rewriting the History function.
Message-ID: <107567@convex.convex.com>
Date: 23 Oct 90 15:07:24 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.165721.7584@polyof.poly.edu> <1990Oct21.010205.24695@cbnewsh.att.com>
Sender: news@convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Followup-To: comp.unix.shell
Organization: CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX
Lines: 16

In article <1990Oct21.010205.24695@cbnewsh.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.att.com (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
>The old Bourne shell (/bin/sh) doesn't do history.
>The C shell does, with the ugly !! command-based interface.
>The Korn shell (ksh) does history, stores it in a file, and gives
>	you an editor-interface as well as a command-based interface.
>Various intellectual derivatives like BASH and tcsh are similar.
>The 9th edition shell gave you something lean, mean, and clean, as always.
>The adventure shell doesn't have history, but it has xyzzy. :-)

I want *both* real history editing, as in ksh's real vi mode and not
tcsh's abortion of the same, as well as expression history (!f:s/x/b),
which may be ugly, but is quite convenient.  But ksh won't do asynch job
notification, key rebinding, or spelling correction, so I'm stuck with an
abomination of a shell.

--tom