Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:07:29 -0600 From: Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Enhancing the user experience with tcsh Message-ID: <4F354ED1.3060307@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1328892101.38277.88.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> References: <CAF6rxgnebQUY8azv8fovQPkB%2BGgsQjaByZ6JwnNWjrM1hB65eQ@mail.gmail.com> <1328887627.38277.68.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <CAF6rxgmjQX%2B8hZVdjYBHJfonegavYhY_22gyVszpPvxhAKbvTA@mail.gmail.com> <1328892101.38277.88.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/10/2012 10:41 AM, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:25 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >> Picking a random email to reply to. >> >> My goal with this email is to reduce the amount of "controversial" changes. > I applaud this. I've often considered doing the same but avoided it > because it was easier than fighting the bikeshed :) > >> commit 3ea4ea3a59d14cb060244618dd89d7dd0170bee1 >> diff --git a/etc/root/dot.cshrc b/etc/root/dot.cshrc >> --- a/etc/root/dot.cshrc >> +++ b/etc/root/dot.cshrc >> @@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ >> >> alias h history 25 >> alias j jobs -l >> -alias la ls -a >> +alias la ls -aF >> alias lf ls -FA >> -alias ll ls -lA >> +alias ll ls -lAF >> +alias ls ls -F >> >> Two people didn't like these changes but didn't explain why. This is >> incredibly helpful, especially for a new user. If you dislike the >> alias change please explain what bothers you about it? > I don't use the first two aliases, so I don't care about them at all. I > do however disagree strongly with changing the default options on such a > widely used command. > > This change is disruptive, and it can affect use of ls(1) in scripts. > For example, it even sticks the extra characters in the output of > "ls -1" (the number 1), which is specifically designed to be used when > piping the output elsewhere. Please do not break this. It is also > distracting - If I want to see what type of file a particular entry is, > why not just run "ls -l"? > > It's like the tendency some Linux distributions have of > "alias mv mv -i", although that can at least be overridden on the > command line with "-f". The "ls -F" change cannot be overridden without > unaliasing. > >> if ($?prompt) then >> # An interactive shell -- set some stuff up >> - set prompt = "`/bin/hostname -s`# " >> + set prompt = "[%n@%m]%c04%# " >> + set promptchars = "%#" >> >> Many people had alternative suggestions for the prompt. Can you please >> clarify why you believe your prompt should be the _default_ one? > I can't comment as I didn't say my suggestion should be default - but > for me the above isn't a bad choice. I would however prefer: > set prompt = "%n@%m:%c04 %# " > and not > set prompt = "[%n@%m]%c04%# " > > as that then gives you user@host:path in exactly the same format as you > need to use with scp, etc. > > >>> I use the $HOME/bin on my machines but I am not so sure to make this a general thing. >> Many people expect it, and given that it is the last item in the path >> it won't affect all that much. > It's been in there forever. I think this should stay, it would just be > too disruptive otherwise. > > My $0.02 Instead of using -F to denote filetypes, why not use colors? -G -- it shouldnt affect scripts at all, yet still provide the same sort of feedback. (Tho, I personally use csh's built-in "ls-F" instead of "ls", and actually tend to alias it to ls as well.) Just a thought. I do, however, like most of the other changes. Here's my stamp. "Approved" :) -- Chuck Burns The Southern Libertarian (owner/editor) http://www.thesouthernlibertarian.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F354ED1.3060307>