Xref: utzoo comp.unix.amiga:1101 comp.unix.shell:2518
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga,comp.unix.shell
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: ksh vs csh (was Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG)
Message-ID: <SS5CXV@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <1991Jun18.023211.25558@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <PD.91Jun19125339@powys.x.co <23109@ogicse.ogi.edu> <1991Jun23.004301.949@ckctpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 17:26:38 GMT

In article <1991Jun23.004301.949@ckctpa.UUCP> crash@ckctpa.UUCP (Frank J. Edwards) writes:
> But what about (in VI command editing mode) "<ESC>/" to perform an interactive
> search of the command history?  Isn't interactive preferable to non-interactive?

Not always. If you're typing multiple commands ahead to the computer you
want a batch-type editor.

I've got ksh on my machine at home, and I used it extensively for several
weekends so I could evaluate it. I much prefer the bourne shell functions
and the bourne shell. If it had a batch-type command editor (it wouldn't
even have to be csh-like.... it'd just have to work in cooked mode, be
scannable by eye (no non-printing characters), and have a similer set of
capabilities.

I see several reasons to change, and I'd do it in a minute if I could type
!-3 !:2-4 | nucpio !?cpio?*.

I find your summary, therefore, missing an important category...
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"