DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-12
Re: bash me, if you like
: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.
: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
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
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.