On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 07:21:26PM -0500, Richard Rauch wrote:
> features bring it onto a par with languages like "PERL".  If
> looking to add a programming language, shouldn't we start with
> widely used ones like "PERL"?

no.

And to answer your next question, we don't import yet another thing, we 
delete the unneccessary onces. 

back to the topic: Seriously, what do you use for shell features in 
"interactive" use? Isn't it that you just file-complete some things, and
the rest is cd,cp,rm,mv,vi etc.pp? Here and there a for loop, which
can be done my sh(1). sh(1) can do "set -o emacs" (or vi) and you can
do a lot of useful stuff for interactive use. File completition is the
last thing that is "missing". 

Somebody described the negative part of the file-complete feature, when
you idle seconds waiting for your shell to complete a list of possible
things, that is indeed a bit, uhm, scary. One solution is to beep, and
present a list on ^D (csh), or the bashian way, whatever, the key was
to have it switched off by default, which sounds like a really good way.


As pointed out, there are kshells out there, original, that are diff from
pdksh.

Solution: delete pdksh from base, don't even *THINK* about importing 
PERL into /bin (freebsd stil), add file-completition to sh(1).


You end up with two shells, one is a POSIX-standard shell that is good
(enough) for interactive use, and a BSD-traditional (c)shell. 

Perfect. Let us commit that, please :)