Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!bruce!labtam!russell
From: russell@labtam.OZ (Russell McDonell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Thank you, Bill Joy!
Message-ID: <953@labtam.OZ>
Date: 11 Sep 88 05:16:59 GMT
References: <2323@munnari.oz>
Organization: Labtam Limited., Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 28

From article <2323@munnari.oz>, by kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz):
> 
> What is needed is a way to do
> 
> 	ls /a >/tmp/file
> 	ls /b | comm - !$
> or
> 	echo old*
> 	rm !$
> 
> neither of which will do anything like what you want if you replace
> csh with ksh and !$ with $_
> 
O.K. - I picked up on this debate late. May be I have missed something.
However I don't understand why command line editing does not result in
a better equivalent. Both can be done in ksh.
> ls /b | comm - !$ = <ESC>-EE3c b | comm - <RET>
> rm !$ = <ESC>-cwrm <RET>
It seems to me the advantages are :-
1. You get to use the editor of your choice - vi in my case.
2. You only have to learn one set of editing rules.
3. What you see is what you get. The final command line is exactly what
   you wanted, not some shorthand abreviation of hieroglyphics.
4. The number of key strokes functionally equivalent. After all the
   actual number of key strokes, with in reason, is surely not an
   appropriate measure of the functional usefulness of a man/machine
   inferface? I would have though ease of comprehension and ease of
   learning via transference of skills was more relevant.
D