Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:30 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: cpghost@cordula.ws Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .cshrc Message-ID: <20050326152630.GA75398@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net> References: <ef60af09050325163613828b24@mail.gmail.com> <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-03-26 16:20, cpghost@cordula.ws wrote: >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? It does. You can enable either emacs-style line editing with: $ set -o emacs or vi-style command line editing with: $ set -o vi Note though that tab completion is not supported for commands or filenames, AFAIK, so you may still want to stick with bash.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050326152630.GA75398>