[9fans] Re: interaction

[9fans] Re: interaction

[forsyth]

	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.

[9fans] Re: interaction

[Richard]

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk writes:
>	Richard> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just
>	Richard> for scripts?

>               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.

those suggestions are specific to Plan 9 whereas I was asking the 2 posters
about their style of usage of rc on *Unix*.

it is always good, though, to recieve confirmation that experienced Plan
9 users actually follow the general style described in the Acme and
Plumber papers.  and "see what I need and get what I see" is an apt
description of that style.  per analogy with WYSIWYG, maybe we should
shorten it to SWYNAGWYS.

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

definitely.