Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!thor!mike
From: mike@thor.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Bourne Again Shell?
Message-ID: <1166@thor.stolaf.edu>
Date: 13 Feb 89 16:30:07 GMT
References: <26563@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <42400008@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Free Software Foundation
Lines: 22

In article <42400008@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>Why didn't they just implement ksh from the start?  I would think it
>easier and cleaner to do that than to aim at sh and then patch in
>changes.

Reading all the speculation about bash lately, I thought I'd throw in
a little fact.

1.  It is Bourne shell compatible.  Not all the Korn shell features have
been implemented, for example "select" which is bogus.  It certainly has
the provisions for functions, local variables, and aliases though.

2.  It supports both csh style history and command line editing.  The
latter supports at least vi and emacs modes and (at least in the latter)
user-configured keymaps.  (Actually, the GNU command line editing library
is used and all programs that use it refer to the same customization file.)

3.  I have no idea when it will be available.  I've been using it off
and on for some time now, and there are still bugs.
-- 
Mike Haertel					mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
			In Hell they run VMS.