Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:26:04 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100607202604.3cdfe13c.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20100607040607.GC29350@guilt.hydra> References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <20100605231715.GD69990@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra> <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra> <20100606200628.GA8748@holstein.holy.cow> <20100607040607.GC29350@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:06:07 -0600, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 10:06:28AM -1000, parv@pair.com wrote:
> >
> > I cannot say about the tcsh features.
>
> That's kind of a shame, since tcsh is what I prefer these days, having
> long since given up on bash (pretty much immediately after I started
> using FreeBSD as my primary OS instead of bash, and realized I preferred
> the csh-style syntax).
I may use this chance to add that I'm also a fan of FreeBSD's csh
especially from the standpoint of dialog behaviour. For example,
autocompletition is - in my opinion - much better than in bash
(which does force too much interaction).
Example:
$ ls /usr/local/bin/m[tab]
BEEP!
*** [tab]
Display all 146 possibilities? (y or n)
*** y
mDNSClientPosix* moc-qt4*
mDNSIdentify* modutil*
--More--(1%)
*** q
$ ls /usr/local/bin/m
The "***" marks all unneccessary interaction that interrupts
work flow.
Also, csh's history behaviour is better - again in my opinion.
For example, if you enter "bl" and press the up / down arrow keys,
you can browse all commands that started with "bl", e. g. "bla",
"bli", "blubb", "blonk" and so on. In bash, you would browse
through *all* commands using the same approach.
I am aware of the fact that most shell behaviour can be configured
or reprogrammed, but I'm just talking about the default settings.
> I've never really tried using vi-mode editing in any shell, despite the
> fact I'm a constant vi user (even a vi gangsta, one might say). Maybe I
> should some day. Thus far, though, I don't even know if tcsh supports
> vi-mode editing.
According to "man csh", it is possible:
The command-line editor (+)
Command-line input can be edited using key sequences much like those
used in GNU Emacs or vi(1). The editor is active only when the edit
shell variable is set, which it is by default in interactive shells.
The bindkey builtin can display and change key bindings. Emacs-style
key bindings are used by default (unless the shell was compiled other-
wise; see the version shell variable), but bindkey can change the key
bindings to vi-style bindings en masse.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100607202604.3cdfe13c.freebsd>