[TUHS] Re: A few comments on porting the Bourne shell

Larry McVoy on 30.12.2022 21:02: I'd like the idea of   "preserving a heirloom in its natural environment" (and even more effort went in https://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html) let alone this does not prevent from adding modern shells... I guess in interactive use most users would only miss one thing: the history & line editing capability? Side notes to that: * By intention, the almquist shell (a port due to the Berkeley/ATT mess) initially had no history. From the package file DIFFERENCES [1], "History.   It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O. Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you still want history." * and in "ksh - An Extensible High Level Language" David Korn writes: "Originally the idea of adding command line editing to ksh was rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal driver." [2] I have always wondered, what such a central terminal driver driven history/line-editing would have felt like. [1] https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/DIFFERENCES [2] https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/korn.html