Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bu.edu!bu-cs!snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!smunews!txsil!steve
From: steve@txsil.lonestar.org (Steve McConnel)
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: bash -i not interactive
Message-ID: <269@txsil.lonestar.org>
Date: 6 Feb 90 23:25:51 GMT
References: <9002050846.AA01171@ccv.fr>
Reply-To: steve@txsil.lonestar.org (Steve McConnel)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas TX
Lines: 29

In article <9002050846.AA01171@ccv.fr> pascal@ccvi.ccv.fr (Pascal Meheut)
 writes:
> I'm using bash-1.04 and I think this a wonderful tool.  ...

Ditto.  Finally i don't have to put up with the local MSDOS and VMS fanatics
bragging about their command line editors!

> Now, one question : it seems to me that bash don't suport the -i flag, to
> use it as an interactive shell, but through pipes, for instances. (I'm trying
> to add a shell-mode to Micro-emacs so I need this feature) Is there a good
> reason for this ?
>				Pascal Meheut.
> Mail addresse : pascal@ccv.fr

I found it rather disconcerting when i switched from csh to bash (1.04)
that GNU emacs (18.55) no longer displayed a prompt in "Shell: run" mode.
GNU emacs appears to automatically use the -i option in an attempt to force
"interactive" behavior when firing up the shell ("echo $-" prints "io"),
but bash uses -i for another purpose altogether.  There's a bug in there
somewhere! :-) :-)

Since both sh and csh appear to support the "-i == interactive" flag, perhaps
bash should do so as well for compatibility.  After all, we don't want
those shells to have a capability that bash lacks, do we? :-) :-) :-)
-- 
Stephen McConnel
Summer Institute of Linguistics  PHONE: 214-709-2418        
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Road          UUCP: ...!{texbell|convex|utafll}!txsil!steve
Dallas, TX 75236              Internet: steve@txsil.lonestar.org