Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!ron
From: ron@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted
Subject: Re: tenex-like unix shells?
Message-ID: <12828@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sat, 20-Jun-87 16:15:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.12828
Posted: Sat Jun 20 16:15:39 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 06:51:58 EDT
References: <1668@umn-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 30

I have one, except mine uses an underlying Bourne shell.  Let's not
comment on the choice of underlying shell other than to say it's a
matter of taste.  I think the Bourne shell is much cleaner in many
respects but was missing many of the features that drove people to
the C shell in the first place.

My number one problem is that people stopped putting shell escapes
into programs when they got job control, this didn't bother me as
much (I use a windowing terminal) but certain programs like TALK
which run in raw mode don't bother to check to see if you had a
suspend character turned on, they just go ahead and emulate it and
suspend themselves if you type control-Z locking decent /bin/sh users
up.

I immersed my self into the Bourne shell and added job control.  The
functionality and user interface is nearly identical to the CSH though
I decided not to get involved with the internals of two shells, so it
is made compatible by external examination.

Then 5R2 came out with shell functions, which are fancier than CSH
aliases but are roughly equivelent.  Having a hard time getting died in
the wool csh users to switch, I added an editing mechanism, similar but
more powerful than the tcsh editing/completion/history.

Roughly, this is the same as the KSH when you set -o emacs, but predates
the ksh's availability and I'll send it to source licensees at for nothing
as opposed to whatever the tool chest wants for it.


-Ron