Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!tiamat!jim From: jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Bourne Again Shell? Summary: doesn't this work Message-ID: <388@tiamat.fsc.com> Date: 15 Feb 89 23:26:14 GMT References: <26563@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <42400008@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> <3089@ficc.uu.net> Organization: Filtration Sciences Corp., Chattanooga, TN Lines: 48 In article <3089@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > 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$ kcwrmE D Doesn't something along the lines of: vi$ r ls=rm work, and without as much typing. Also, If you put the command number in your prompt, it's also easy to do. 1$ ls *.a *.b *.c ... 2$ more *.a 3$ pr *.b | lp 4$ cat *.c | mail someone-I-dont-like [ the exact command are irrellevant, the point is that there are some there] 5$ r 1 ls=rm Granted, this may not be easier than what the csh has to offer, but is does appear easier than the ksh example offered. > 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... The only thing I don't really like is that when you repeat an entire command using "r" (really some alias invloving fc), it goes in the history again. This is probably the most correct thing to do, but there are times when I don't want my recent history to get filled with the same command over and over. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651 *** Altos users unite! mail to "info-altos-request@tiamat.fsc.com" ***