From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 13 14:50:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA02073 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au (rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au [129.78.129.109]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA02068 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:50:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dawes@localhost) by rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA06168; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:49:42 +1100 From: David Dawes Message-Id: <199603132249.JAA06168@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> Subject: Re: using ddb to debug a double-panic? To: lehey.pad@sni.de (Greg Lehey) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:49:42 +1100 (EST) Cc: erich@lodgenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199603131703.SAA19490@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Mar 13, 96 05:59:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>>>> Seriously, Bruce (or anybody else): what kind of editing? The main >>>>> objection I have to vi-style editing in shells is that it is so >>>>> ESC-intensive. I suspect it's also more difficult to program, though >>>>> I don't suppose that's the real problem. If anybody has any >>>>> alternatives to emacs-style bindings, please let me know a detailed >>>>> description of how it should work. >> >> I'm definitly in favor of emacs-bindings, even the vi lovers here >> hate the vi-mode in ksh,bash,... > >Noted. I suppose we'll find out if anybody disagrees with you :-) I disagree (someone has to :-). I always use vi mode in tcsh. My fingers are definitely wired for vi. David