Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!mit-eddie!ll-xn!adelie!mirror!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Bourne Again Shell?
Message-ID: <1434@X.UUCP>
Date: 17 Feb 89 14:49:00 GMT
References: <26563@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <42400008@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> <3089@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us
Lines: 25

In article <3089@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
K>In article <7700@chinet.chi.il.us>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
n>> I really hate to ask this, but...  What can you do with csh history that
o>> you can't do with ksh's?
w>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
Y> 	% ls *.a *.b *.c
o> 	...
u> 	% rm !^
r> 	rm *.a
 > Is handier than:
T> 	emacs$ ls *.a *.b *.c
o> 	...
o> 	emacs$ <^P><DEL><DEL>rm<ESC>w<ESC>w<BS><^K><CR>
ls> 
Try
 	emacs$ rm <ESC>2<ESC>.

Granted, it is more keystrokes that !^, but it generalizes very nicely.
-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

Presumably this means that it is vital to get the wrong answers quickly.
		Kernighan and Plauger, The Elements of Programming Style