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