Hugh McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/29/16 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Gabriele Bulfon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Wow, looks like I have ignited a long thread! :) > >> Maybe I should have better stated that it's not about bash, but that the > >> shells are said to be Bourne-compatible. > >> Also, maybe I exagerated the number of shells, it's about one hundered at > >> most... ;) > > > > There are not so many useful shells that are close to the standard. > > Others have commented well but just one comment on "the standard" for > interactive use, at least for the engineering teams I work in: > > 1. Back in the 80s/90s the only choices were sh and csh. Since vanilla > sh was primitive and csh was much more user friendly, "everyone" used > csh, at least for interactive non-scripting usage. And csh definitely > had history editing via !23:s/old/new/, in fact this was one of the key > advantages.
If you call this an editor, then I understand the different interpretation. When I talk about a history editor, I have a modern cursor controllable editor in mind like the one I wrote in 1982. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
