Re: rc futures

[Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>]

When Tim mentioned "rc 2", I have to admit I was expecting something along
the lines of "same functionality, 'better' internals". The amount and
size of some of the changes being discussed is scary. ( different syntax,
different variable handling, different execution semantics, and different
input behaviour, and bigger, but otherwise business as usual ). And as
Paul/Byron said, if you want some of this, go use es.

The only one that makes sense to me is the error messages. I'd favour
"rc:" on the command line, and "script-name:" for scripts. If you were
going to always include "rc:", I'd want a space after it, so that it didn't
confuse wily with "rc:script:nn".

I'm not familiar with readline and its variants, having never explicitly
gone out looking for it. Does it provide anything other than history
recall and editing? If not, $history is enough to provide 99% of that
functionality via an external program.

steve