bash me, if you like

[Matthew Dillon]

:On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:11:24 -0500, Craig Dooley wrote:
:
:> zsh is based on ksh, and is quite nice.  I personally have no problem
:> installing other shells through ports, but I also never use csh/tcsh.  I
:> think this might be a moot point though since the new packaging system
:> should house everything eventually I think.
:
:Ahh, good point. I keep forget about the new packaging system that is
:supposed to give the more flexible.
:
:Cheers,
:Mezz
:
:-- 
:bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.

    Bash (and sh) don't do interactive partial completion history 
    substitution.  At least, I don't think it does.

    e.g. in tcsh:

    if ($?prompt) then
	if ( $shell == "/bin/tcsh" || $shell == "/usr/local/bin/tcsh" ) then
	    set prompt = "%m:%/%# "
	    set symlinks = expand
	    bindkey "^W" backward-delete-word
	    bindkey -k up history-search-backward
	    bindkey -k down history-search-forward
	endif
    endif

    In fact, what do people think if I make the aboev the default in
    /etc/csh.cshrc?  I've used the above for *years*, literally, and
    can't live without it, but the real question is: can that be said
    generally by tcsh users?  If you've never used partial completion
    history before then you've never used an Amiga :-).  Once you start
    using it you become dependant on it, kinda like how the fingers
    of vi users get programmed with all the myrid character editing
    sequences.

    But, yes, we should not go changing the base system for things
    that will ultimately be handled by the packaging system. 

    The real meat of what is considered important, whether it be part of
    the base system or a package, is what to include on the CD.  e.g. I
    already include 'cvsup' on the CD and that isn't part of the base system.
    zsh would fall into the same category.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>