Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bria!mike
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: shell
Message-ID: <442@bria>
Date: 14 Feb 91 21:30:07 GMT
References: <2449@kluge.fiu.edu>
Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike
Organization: MGI Group International, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 21
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In an article, serss0.fiu.edu!acmfiu (ACMFIU) writes:
|I'm working on a UNIX shell for the Apple IIgs computer and am currently doing
|the command-line editing features. I read here before that POSIX was
|doing something with a shell (can't remember what). [...]

Right.  POSIX.1 has to do with the kernel, POSIX.2 has to do with the command
interface (ie: shell).

|Anyway, is it worthwhile me making this a POSIX conformant shell or emulating
|something like csh, sh, tcsh, etc. Right now it's set to emulate sh. Also, is
|there some shell that has emacs-like editing facilities. If so, where can I
|get a description of these?

POSIX conformity is definately a worthwhile endeavor.  Try taking a look
at BASH (FSF's Bourne Again Shell).
-- 
Michael Stefanik                       | Opinions stated are not even my own.
Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."