From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0d2163b339e8b9211593ad0c636e070a@brasstown.quanstro.net> References: <20120828150521.GA10731@intma.in> <20120828153548.GC11005@intma.in> <20120831222403.GA81150@intma.in> <0d2163b339e8b9211593ad0c636e070a@brasstown.quanstro.net> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:31:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Rudolf Sykora To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh Topicbox-Message-UUID: b59abca4-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 2 September 2012 19:25, erik quanstrom wrote: > works here: > ; for(i in 1 2 3){echo $i;break} This change seems to have not got into the main plan9 source. Should be there. Together with continue, since 'continue' may simplify readability. > >> - sane user interface (rlwrap rc won't give you THE TRUE POWER OF AUTOCOMPLETE) > > lol. I too believe that unless the mechanism of autocomplete is well-enough resolved, rc won't work for many people. I understand the reasons why readline is not in the shell, but on the other hand I often get angry when I can't autocomplete. Sometimes I just do not remember the exact name of a command, sometimes I can't use variables in a path on the command line since I do not exactly remember what should come next (like sam $directory^/something; ctrl-f doesn't help), etc. Also the problem of not being able to repeat last few commands so simply as can be done elsewhere is disappointing (if there is a lot of error output from the previous command, saying that one must look back, find the command, change it, ...). Rsc's " and "" scripts help much, but still are not so straightforward as an up-arrow. (Again, I understand that for the latter-like behaviour one needs cursor addressing.) Sometimes, perhaps, some complexity is useful. Ruda