Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?

[Stan Friesen]

In article <2601 at usceast.UUCP> still at cs.scarolina.edu (Bert Still) writes:
>
>Ok, it's been a little while since we had a real good "religious war" here in
>comp.unix.wizards, and I have this strange feeling that this might turn into
>one of those... however, here we go. (In the classic style of debate.)
>
>RESOLVED that csh should be included as a part of System V in the same sense
>	that the ``vi'' editor, and TCP/IP have been included.
>
>TRANSLATION:	I have heard several vendors of System V based UN*X state that
>		the Berkeley shell is not provided as a part of their
>		distribution because they do not perceive a need in the user
>		community for csh.
>
>
>	Anyone out there have an opinion?

	I *refuse* to use the Bourne Shell since it lacks a history mechanism,
which I consider imperative in an *interactive* shell. The Korn Shell has a
history mechanism, so it MAY be acceptible. That is if the history mechanism
is easily used. I am somewhat concerned that it does not provide a quick and
dirty way of snagging the one or more of the arguments of the previous
command though. I find I use that capability in csh more than I use the
editing capability. Certainly the *editing* capability in the Korn Shell is
very nice.
	So, all in all, I would prefer to see the C-shell on any system I
work on. But I would be willing to at least try the Korn Shell if I had to.
-- 
Sarima Cardolandion			sarima at gryphon.CTS.COM
aka Stanley Friesen			rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima
					Sherman Oaks, CA