From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 6 17:45:49 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 8CF6637B77E for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:45:46 -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 CAA12188 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:49:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id CAA34641 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (mass.cdrom.com [204.216.28.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E06237C25E; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:43:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02002; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:48:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200004070048.RAA02002@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Matthew N. Dodd" Cc: "David O'Brien" , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of tcsh into src/contrib/, replacing src/usr.bin/csh In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 19:57:08 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 17:48:32 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:15:48PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > > > What is stopping you from adding libedit support to /bin/csh in the same > > > way it was added to /bin/sh? > > > > I deemed importing Tcsh easier than hacking on csh. Plus Tcsh is > > maintained. We don't really have a csh maintainer. Also libedit doesn't > > do command line completion. > > Why can't it do command line completion? > > el_set(e, EL_ADDFN, ...) is the hook you would use to do command line > completion. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Because the work has already been done. Basically, the counter-arguments are all bunk. There aren't any substantial syntactic differences between the ancient version of tcsh that we call 'csh' and the modern version. Installing it under a different name reduces to some degree its usefulness and makes the bloat issue worse. I'm not sure quite where this burst of fear-of-progress and basic luddite-ism came from; I guess we've been making so much progress elsewhere that the establishmentarianists had to find something they felt they could resist safely. Come on, ladies. Be daring; do something new first for a change. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message