Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:20:57 +0100 From: cpghost@cordula.ws To: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .cshrc Message-ID: <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu> References: <ef60af09050325163613828b24@mail.gmail.com> <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:12:26AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > The csh shell of more likely not, tcsh, is more friendly for > interacticve use than the sh shell. Those who like the sh type > syntax nowdays use the derivative bash as their shell. It is also > more interactive friendly than plain sh. BTW, why doesn't sh include readline(3) or some other kind of command line editing capability? The only reason for using bash over sh is for many people the lack of a decent command line editor function in sh. Footprint perhaps? > ////jerry Cheers, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050326152057.GB90180>