acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) (02/14/91)
Sorry for the vague title but: I'm working on a UNIX shell for the Apple IIgs computer and am currently doing the command-line editing features. I read here before that POSIX was doing something with a shell (can't remember what). Anyway, is it worthwhile me making this a POSIX conformant shell or emulating something like csh, sh, tcsh, etc. Right now it's set to emulate sh. Also, is there some shell that has emacs-like editing facilities. If so, where can I get a description of these? albert
fenn@wpi.WPI.EDU (Brian Fennell) (02/15/91)
If it is just for your personal use, you might try porting bash. I have not looked at the code but, if you have an ANSI compiler I would bet the changes that need to be made are few. Size would be your biggest problem. Any comments on this from you bash users?
mike (02/15/91)
In an article, serss0.fiu.edu!acmfiu (ACMFIU) writes: |I'm working on a UNIX shell for the Apple IIgs computer and am currently doing |the command-line editing features. I read here before that POSIX was |doing something with a shell (can't remember what). [...] Right. POSIX.1 has to do with the kernel, POSIX.2 has to do with the command interface (ie: shell). |Anyway, is it worthwhile me making this a POSIX conformant shell or emulating |something like csh, sh, tcsh, etc. Right now it's set to emulate sh. Also, is |there some shell that has emacs-like editing facilities. If so, where can I |get a description of these? POSIX conformity is definately a worthwhile endeavor. Try taking a look at BASH (FSF's Bourne Again Shell). -- Michael Stefanik | Opinions stated are not even my own. Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (02/18/91)
You might try ms_sh, the shell for msdos. SOurce went to
comp.sources.misc some time ago, or you might contact the author for
later versions. Some of the patches went out, as well.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -meacmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb14.164401.540@wpi.WPI.EDU> fenn@wpi.WPI.EDU (Brian Fennell) writes: >If it is just for your personal use, you might try porting bash. I have >not looked at the code but, if you have an ANSI compiler I would bet >the changes that need to be made are few. Size would be your biggest >problem. I was going to port bash until i talked to the FSF and they said they didn't like their stuff existing on apple computers because of apple's lawsuit agains microsoft, hp, and i think some others regarding them copying "apple's" user interface. incidentally, xerox is now suing apple claiming that apple stole the user interface from design work done at the palo alto research center (they had the first graphic GUI there but because cost was too high it never sold much). anyway, for that reason i'm having to rewrite every GNU thing myself (or those of us in the apple community anyway). incidentally, this is for an apple II there are a few other shells i could try to port (i.e. other PD ones) but i would rather do this myself to learn how these things work. albert