From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <c98edc44e10de62560fe9a72d1cf061d@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 2009 01:39:44 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <1239082320.2778.20.camel@katy-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] a bit OT, programming style question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d3cfc42e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Would there be any merit to breaking the shell apart into a number of
> smaller programs? Looking at GNU bash as an example (though I know GNU
> is probably one of the worst places to look for "Unix style"), It is my
> understanding that one program handles many things, such as keyboard
> bindings (which I believe in turn requires bash to read in cbreak or raw
> or whatever and do it's own line editing), glob expansion, aliases,
> history, syntax parsing, command execution, job control, etc. etc.
>
> IMO this results in a more complex program than necessary. Keyboard
> bindings for example; why couldn't they be handled by a program that
> just does keyboard bindings + line editing, and writes finalized lines
> to the shell. This in turn could also allow bindings to be more easily
> customized (such as binding autocomplete to Ctrl+F instead of tab)
> depending on its implementation.

fwiw, plan 9 handles key bindings in #κ.  the shell hasn't a clue.
rio (or acme) handles the editing.  again, the shell hasn't a clue.
and autocomplete?  yup.  same story.  hapless rc hasn't a clue.

rc is proof that ignorance is bliss.

- erik