[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-14 12:47, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <njoior$lv7$4 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>> On 2016-06-13 22:51, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>> In article <njmdvo$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.
>
> So, vi and or emacs aren't that special; it's the unix terminal driver that's
> to be given all the credits.  ...wait for it... ...wait for it...  Hopefully,
> the light comes on.

I'm getting the feeling that either you do not understand anything at 
all, or you are trying to be funny and totally failing.

	Johnny