POSIX bashing

[der Mouse]

In article <3478 at unisoft.UUCP>, greywolf at unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
> /* <70319 at brunix.UUCP> by cgy at cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
[bashing back and forth about cooked mode]
>  * Any text interface written today should use the GNU "readline"
>  * libraries, or an equivalent.
> But why put an extra layer there...?  You're not saving anything by
> doing that, either, really.  And such a thing would be a lose on a
> shell.  The one advantage I can see is that one could do convenient
> things like defining both Backspace *AND* delete to be "delete", or
> have both control-Z and control-P be "suspend" or whatever.

Since I use a shell that does run in cbreak....

The usefulness of such an interface promises to be as much a religious
issue as editor wars or keyboard quality arguments.  So to throw my two
cents into the fray....

I find it to be a major *win* in the shell.  Not just because I can
define both \10 and \177 as "delete", though that capability is nice to
have.  Much more important is the ability to edit the command-line at
points other than the current end.  I occasionally have to use systems
without such shells, so I have a constant basis for comparison.  A
rough estimate is that using the shell I do, instead of a standard sh
or csh, saves me perhaps ten minutes per day.  And the cost is minimal;
another rough estimate places the cost at well under 1 cpu-second per
day, and most of those cycles would otherwise be burnt in the idle
loop.  No, it's unquestionably worth it.  For me.  (If you want to
claim that shells running in cooked mode should be available, you won't
get any argument out of me.)

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse at larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu