From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
Message-Id: <200007180807.EAA19981@cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] Re: interaction
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:07:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0f3dade-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

	Richard> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just
	Richard> for scripts?


when i expect to repeat or find i do repeat a particular sequence
of commands, rather than hunt in a transcript or type incantations to hunt them down,
i usually define a function or two (say `x') that encapsulates the sequence,
and use that.  (it also has the advantage that i can squirt the definition into windows
open on distinct directories.)  in acme and rio i might have a window open on a file of common
sequences for editing, snarfing and sending into shells and other commands.
when developing in acme, i have the word mk typed in the tag of the directory
window so that one click of a button will execute it and pop the diagnostics
into another window for use by button 3.  i can have different
commands for different windows (adiff /one/thing /another/thing is a common one
at the moment).  furthermore, in all but the function case i can see what i need and
get what i see, and they all handle multiline commands sensibly, which i've never
found true for most `richard the third' interfaces.

in short, it's worth experimenting with the things the system gives you.