From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 6 17:49:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E66A37C1AE for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:49:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12232 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id CAA34681 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:49:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (peter1.yahoo.com [208.48.107.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E60137BA2E; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:47:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E0B1CD7; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:47:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Matthew N. Dodd" Cc: "David O'Brien" , Terry Lambert , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of tcsh into src/contrib/, replacing src/usr.bin/csh In-Reply-To: Message from "Matthew N. Dodd" of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 18:15:48 EDT." Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 17:47:19 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20000407004719.D8E0B1CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Matthew N. Dodd" wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:01:17PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I think putting in tcsh as csh would be putting FreeBSD in the > > > same position of having a shell where script authors think they > > > are using features which are available everywhere, but are > > > specific to the "enhanced" shell > > > > Tcsh buys us *INTERACTIVE* enhancements, not scripting ones. > > What is stopping you from adding libedit support to /bin/csh in the same > way it was added to /bin/sh? Why bother? By the time you've finished, you essentially end up with tcsh except you've diverged so far that you've created a new maintainence chore. The value in tcsh's completion support is that it is totally programmable and can be context sensitive, as well as the usual key to function binding. I have long wanted to replace csh with tcsh in the base tree. The scripting is so close to unchanged that it doesn't matter. Even then, the extensions are only active when running on a tty, not in script mode. IMHO, the change is as close to a risk-free change as you can get. Incidently, I'd be interested to know how many folks actually seriously use non-trivial csh scripts. I have not seen a csh script in over 10 years - this has mainly been helped along by every vendor having their own incompatable or broken version of csh. csh scripts are not portable, period. One other thing.. src/bin/csh appears to have large parts that are a derivative of tcsh! (since I don't have the sccs files I can't be certain, but things like SHORT_STRINGS came directly from tcsh's localization efforts) Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message