Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpl-opus!jewett
From: jewett@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Bob Jewett)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Bourne Again Shell?
Message-ID: <63090002@hpl-opus.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Feb 89 18:46:15 GMT
References: <26563@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 17

> 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.

I find the opposite.  Especially important for new users is the fact that
command-line manipulation is the same (generally) as their editor.

> 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...

I find ksh's history much better overall than csh's, especially in the
day-to-day stuff.  The ability to call up an actual "vi" on a multi-line
command is very nice.  It makes script prototyping much faster.

The csh feature I miss is {} filename expansion.

Bob Jewett