Xref: utzoo comp.unix.amiga:1032 comp.unix.shell:2455
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kas!rhealey
From: rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga,comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG
Message-ID: <232@kas.helios.mn.org>
Date: 20 Jun 91 03:59:53 GMT
References: <1991Jun15.014909.1562@menudo.uh.edu> <1991Jun15.141609.848@ckctpa.UUCP> <1991Jun17.234824.20461@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: comp.unix.amiga
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN
Lines: 21

In article <1991Jun17.234824.20461@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>Why do *you* use csh?  What are the advantages (please be specific and
>>objective) of csh over ksh?
>Ksh doesn't have filename completion. (At least not that I know of)
>This is from a person who uses ksh, csh, and tcsh.
>
	Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztt. But thank you for playing...

	ksh has had completion for quite a few revs, under vi mode
	type ESC followed by either an * or an = over the string
	you want completed.

	Admittedly, the completion is different from classic csh and
	tcsh completion and requires an extra keystoke or so. But,
	comming from a System V background and oodles of Bourne shell
	scripts, there's no real good reason not to use ksh.

	Comming from the BSD relm I could understand strong resistance
	to anything not csh based.

		-Rob