[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <b367314f-9a9f-4881-8c9b-c3e24029b261 at googlegroups.com>, johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk writes:
>On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:29:00 UTC+1, Johnny Billquist  wrote:
>> 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
>
>It may not be hard to see where it should go on RSX.
>
>VMS is not RSX (and UNIX is not VMS).
>
>For this kind of line-editing thing, VMS has SMG, which also
>works for line-oriented (as well as screen-oriented) applications.
>
>So for command line handling with multi line recall, definable keys, 
>and other such delights, VMS programmers might want to look at
>SMG or something based on SMG. Or they might not. Depends what
>the goals and constraints are.

Nope, you're wrong!  All of it belongs in the terminal driver!  Incoming!  Run
for cover!

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.