Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!umn-d-ub!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Bourne Again Shell?
Message-ID: <3089@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 14 Feb 89 18:13:28 GMT
References: <26563@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <42400008@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> <7700@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 39

In article <7700@chinet.chi.il.us>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <3071@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Korn Shell with CSH history...
> >Is that too much to ask?

> I really hate to ask this, but...  What can you do with csh history that
> you can't do with ksh's?

We've been over this quite a few times, but what it basically amounts to
is that CSH history is more convenient for simple command line manipulations.

	% ls *.a *.b *.c
	...
	% rm !^
	rm *.a

Is handier than:

	vi$ ls *.a *.b *.c
	...
	vi$ <ESC>kcwrm<ESC>E D<CR>

Or:

	emacs$ ls *.a *.b *.c
	...
	emacs$ <^P><DEL><DEL>rm<ESC>w<ESC>w<BS><^K><CR>

(you will note I'm not an Emacs user, but that's about the amount of typing
 involved)

In every other respect ksh is superior to csh, and there are lots of cases
where ksh history is superior to csh, but for day-to-day stuff I find ksh
history very trying...
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.