ksh vs csh (was Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG)

[Frank J. Edwards]

In article <23109 at ogicse.ogi.edu> morgan at ogicse.ogi.edu (Clark O. Morgan) writes:
>In article <PD.91Jun19125339 at powys.x.co.uk> pd at x.co.uk (Paul Davey) writes:
>>Also ksh doesn't have the ability to refer to !-5:3 (not that I do
>>this very often but !131$ or !132* are very useful.
>
>How true.  Also, csh's "!?" history notation is extremely useful.  I
>use ksh every day and hope never again to be forced to use "bare" csh
>(command line editing is quite a time saver).  But the absence of the
>history features you mentioned (and "!?") is irritating.

But what about (in VI command editing mode) "<ESC>/" to perform an interactive
search of the command history?  Isn't interactive preferable to non-interactive?
Especially since you can hit "n" and search for the next one if the current
one is incorrect?

>Clark O. Morgan     morgan at cse.ogi.edu     ...!uunet!ogicse!morgan

So far, to summarize the responses I've gotten, the major points seem
to be twofold:

	1)	I've got csh on all the machines at work/home(?)/school

	2)	I'm used to csh and see no reason to change (although most
		replies containing this answer admitted that they gave ksh
		only a brief look-over and it didn't work _The Same_ as csh;
		I'm guessing that this means they didn't know how to configure
		it to suit they're needs, either because time coudln't allow
		time for it or perhaps they decided against ksh at this point
		because of (1), above.)

Thanks net.folks; this has been useful to me and will continue to
sit in the back of my mind as I teach future students.
-- 
Frank J. Edwards		|  "I did make up my own mind -- there
2677 Arjay Court		|   simply WASN'T ANY OTHER choice!"
Palm Harbor, FL  34684-4504	|		-- Me
Phone (813) 786-3675 (voice)	|    Only Amiga Makes It Possible...