🚀 go-pugleaf

bird@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (j.l.walters) writes:

[oops!]
>BSD was very much in advance of AT&T Unix, however, with the advent
>of ksh, this IMO is not at all true now.

  I guess I missed a csh debate or two in school :)  I'm very interested
in examples of why csh might not be reasonable to base GNO's gsh script
language on.

>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.

  Heh :)  It depends on what you mean by 'ksh like things'.  gsh
is a very extended csh (i.e., tcsh) but currently does not have
a script language.  I've finished the next GNO version's gsh parsing
subsystem and implemented 'foreach', and if y'all can convince me
that csh is brain damaged in some way, I'm all ears.
  BTW, Albert Chin is working on a graphical ksh shell that mimics
the NeXT environment.  What I've seen so far is very encouraging.

>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.

  I suspect that's a problem with the IIgs port of emacs.  
It could also be that the functionality is there but has a different
key mapping.  Morgan Davis (IIgs uEmacs guru) can assuredly answer
this better than I can.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649