RE: Re: [vox-tech] I don't have an .inputrc

["Deja User" <unix_MAPSadmin@my-deja.com>]

Sounds like .inputrc will be fairly important to me when I get more into 
Linux-specific projects. Thanks for the info., Micah. 

>Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:21:46 -0800
>From: Micah Cowan <micah@cowanbox.com>
>To: vox-tech@franz.mother.com
>Subject: Re: [vox-tech] I don't have an .inputrc
>Reply-To: vox-tech@franz.mother.com
>
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:48:29PM -0800, Deja User wrote:
>
>> When I create unix accounts using Korn shell, I modify a .profile
>> (in my home directory) and that's it. I think the way Linux/Bash is
>> configured seems unnecessarily complex. Now, someone can tell me
>> exactly how logical and simple it all is... ; ) BTW: I use ksh to
>> maintain compatibility with my work environment. I want to work more
>> with ksh scripting. Given my limited knowledge, I am assuming it
>> might be unwise to write ksh scripts in a bash environment, although
>> probably most of what I write will be sh compatible. Dunno... UA
>
>.inputrc isn't extra complexity - it's extra functionality.  There's
>certainly no need to use it whatsoever, but it allows you to customize
>anything which uses libreadline.
>
>BTW, .inputrc has absolutely nothing to do with bash (directly).  It
>has to do with libreadline, which is /used/ by bash.  It's also used
>by Perl and gdb and other things; and the changes you make in your
>.inputrc affect all those things as well.
>
>ksh seems to be a great shell (here I'm not talking about the one
>usually shipped with Linux, but the newest version, ksh93 I
>think...).  But bash has most of the functionality it has, and is free
>software, whereas ksh is not.  This is why I prefer bash.
>
>Bash also has many truly terrific features which are rarely used;
>including the abilitiy to write your own "builtin" commands and plug
>them in to a currently running session.
>
>Micah


------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/