🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <jpenne.725237760@ee.ualberta.ca>, by jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner):
> Just a question (as the subject line says), why did you go with 'csh'
> compatibility in the first place?  Unix csh is broken (as far as
> programming the thing goes.  Its command line interface works fine,
> except that it lacks command line editing and most versions I've
> played with don't have filename completion working).  The other
> shells like ksh, bash, etc are better...  Of course, this is just an
> interest-based question since you're obviously not going to change it
> now.

I think that this is a very serious quesion. At one point in time
BSD was very much in advance of AT&T Unix, however, with the advent
of ksh, this IMO is not at all true now.

As a person that is PANTING to come up with the money to buy GNO,
and will in the near future, I really will expect ksh like things
when I do spring for the price. Please let me know if ksh is NOT
going to be part of the GNO future so I can start beating my head
against the wall now.

Don't know if it applies, however, it really galls me under ORCA
to not be able to type: emacs fi f2 f3, ... and not be able to
type ^XN to access the next file f2, etc.

-- 

		Joe Walters att!ihlpm!bird, IH 2A-227 (708) 224-7189
		To know, and not to do, is not yet to know