Some people want the facilities of tcsh, while others do not
	want the bloat....

	Question: Why not add the same command line functionality to the 
	NetBSD csh that sh already has!?

	To most people I know the addition of command line editing to
	csh would mean more than all the other features of tcsh...

	And to those who dont want it - they dont 'set -o emacs' in
	their .cshrc (Or similar)...

		David

 D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk (MIME) +44 171 477 8186  {post,host}master  (abs)
Network Analyst, UCS, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
 <<< Monochrome - Largest UK Internet BBS - try telnet mono.city.ac.uk >>>

On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Joao Carlos Mendes Luis wrote:

> > On Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:09:06 +0200 (MET DST)  Blaz Zupan wrote:
> > > Looking at tcsh I see it is more advanced then the original
> > > NetBSD csh. I wonder why we don't replace csh with tcsh.
> > > Is it historical reasons? Copyright problems? Or are there
> > > any features in csh that are not present in tcsh?
> > 
> > One can always get tcsh and compile and install it themselves,
> > why bloat the source tree?
> 
> Let's change the question: Why not include tcsh in the default
> distribuition ?  Some may not like tcsh, but other may.  It's
> something like choosing between sh, bash, sh5 and ksh, I think. :)
> 
> 					Jonny
> 
> --
> Joao Carlos Mendes Luis			jonny@coe.ufrj.br
> +55 21 290-4698 ( Job )			jonny@adc.coppe.ufrj.br
> Network Manager				UFRJ/COPPE/CISI
> Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
>