From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 26 15:26:49 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E410E16A4CE for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:26:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kane.otenet.gr (kane.otenet.gr [195.170.0.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE8A43D62 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:26:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a198.otenet.gr [212.205.215.198]) j2QFPp3R004353; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:25:52 +0200 Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2QFQUIh075450; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:30 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j2QFQUeO075449; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:30 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:30 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: cpghost@cordula.ws Message-ID: <20050326152630.GA75398@gothmog.gr> References: <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net> cc: Jerry McAllister cc: gert.cuykens@gmail.com cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .cshrc X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:26:50 -0000 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.