[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-13 22:51, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <njmdvo$vo0$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>> On 2016-06-13 14:59, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>> In article <njeel9$fq3$1 at dont-email.me>, "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw at qsl.net_work> writes:
>>>>
>>>> One issue with the VMS terminal line editing is because it is handled in
>>>> the driver, it does not have access to the filesystem to allow it to do
>>>> filename completion.
>>>
>>>    Which belongs in the CLI, not the terminal driver.  The CLI should be
>>>    doing it's own command line editing,instead of leaning on the limited
>>>    editing in the driver.
>>
>> I don't agree. I want command line editing, no matter if I'm at the CLI,
>> or in some user application. And I do not consider it to be a good
>> system design that every program should include their own version of
>> commmand line editing.
>
>    Putting editing into the CLI does not mean it has to be removed from
>    the terminal driver.  But the terminal driver is a limited context
>    and should only be used for limited purposes.

True. One does not exclude the other. But I fail to see the benefit of 
having both.

>    I've got UNIX shells that will let me make use of most of the power
>    of vi (oxymoron), or emacs.  I see no reason why all that should be
>    in a driver.  But I also don't want a driver that provides only the
>    functions of a card punch.

I want that vi or emacs capability always, no matter what program or 
context I am in, and not just at the CLI or shell. Which is the reason I 
think it belongs in the driver. This functionality, in my mind, is not 
tied to a specific application or environment. It's a functionality that 
I want basically all the time, everywhere. Based on that, it's not hard 
to see where it should go.

	Johnny