🚀 go-pugleaf

bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:

>  gsh takes a lot of inspiration from tcsh, the modern derivative of
>csh, which provides command-line editing, smarter path handling,
>and filename and command completion.

Good.

>  We never studied a whole lot on any aspect of why csh's script
>language might be considered 'broken'.  Can you provide some examples?

I can only think of one off the top of my head, but csh has a bug when
you type 'if ( expression...' and you forget the spaces around the (.
There are others.  I basically quit using 'csh' when I ran into stuff
like this and forgot about its problems.  Since you guys didn't port
csh you won't have run into these types of problems.

>  gsh is completely (100%) decoupled from the kernel.  We did it just
>like Unix because, well, Unix did it right :)  chsh .. is trivial,
>but right now gsh is the only shell we've got.  I expect this to
>change in the future.  gsh also provides some IIgs-specific
>support that the Unix based shells cannot (like AppleWorks _and_ emacs
>style command line editing).

Sounds good.
-- 
Jerry Penner   jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca   Try a 1-line .sig today.