Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!neptune!iiic.ethz.ch!umueller
From: umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: CShell 5.10, arp stuff, A3000 w/2.0; should they go together
Keywords: CShell arp A3000 2.0
Message-ID: <28943@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: 24 May 91 11:05:23 GMT
References: <1845@contex.contex.com>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch
Reply-To: umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller)
Organization: Departement Informatik, ETH, Zurich
Lines: 69

Author of csh speaking...

In article <1845@contex.contex.com> jeff@contex.contex.com (Jeff Carey) writes:
>I have recently bought a A3000, and have acquired the PD source to
>CShell 5.10 (I think).
Binary is available, too. Man, AmigaDOS isn't UNIX! So if you only want
to use it, get the binary at ab20. By the way, 5.10 is outdated. 5.14 
is the most recent version (uploaded today).

>Being a Unix programmer by profession, I thought this might be useful.
Hope so    :-)

>Well, when I tried to compile said source I discovered that I also
>needed arp.
>So, I got the arp 1.3 distribution.
The source for 5.14 has the right arp files included. Many people have
reported problems finding them, and furthermore, there's a bug or two
in the originals that are corrected in my version.

>Well, the CShell still doesn't compile.  There are a series of structures
>that are defined in both arp's include files as well as in asl.h or dosasl.h.
>I am running Lattice/SAS C compiler 5.10a.
Try using kickstart 1.3 include files. I have imported all needed 2.0
structures into shell.h.

>The CShell documentation claims that it will compile under (atleast) Lattice
>5.00.  What gives?
Partially wrong. I've heard of people who successfully compiled it with
Lattice 5.0x, but for correct operation, you need 5.10.

>Is arp (1.3) supposed to be compatible with WB2.0?
Yes. The library (or at least all functions I use) works fine under 
2.0. Some of the CLI commands break, as I've heard.

>Is arp NEEDED with WB2.0?
No. In fact, WB2.0 replaces arp in many respects. The main reason why
I still use arp is that I want to be kickstart 1.3 compatible. And
because WB2.0 has given me no replacement for SyncRun() (I need a
function that uses the current process).

>Is the CShell I am referring to supposed to be compatible with WB2.0?
Yes. WB2.0 is my personal environment.

>Is there any other csh-like shells out there that:
>	1. do NOT need arp?
>	2. are WB2.0 compatible?
>	3. I can get?
>I am mostly interested in a shell with Unix-like wildcards, command-line
>editing, and file name completion capabilities.
There's only one additional UNIX-like shell: sksh. It's compatible to
UNIX ksh. It also needs arp, the latest version should be WB2.0 compatible,
and it's PD, too (no source). Both csh and sksh have the three features
you mention plus many more.

>I use a shell called 'tcsh' at work which has these.
Somebody's working on a tcsh compatible editing keyboard for csh;
you can also do it yourself. Will be part of csh 5.15.

[burp]
>know about that also...I currently need to work out the details of:
>	1. putting the controlling terminal in raw mode
CShell sources, module rawcon.c, function setrawcon().

Can't help much about the rest. But I'm confident somebody else can.

>Jeff Carey
>jeff@contex.com

U. Dominik Mueller,    umueller@iiic.ethz.ch