You're replying to a comment by argv.
You're replying to a comment by argv.
I am being sponsored by Syntress since 2007! They bought me an amazing dedicated server to run catonmat on. If you're looking web services in Chicago area, I highly recommend the Syntress guys!
I love to read science books. They make my day and I get ideas for awesome blog posts, such as Busy Beaver, On Functors, Recursive Regular Expressions and many others.
Take a look at my
Amazon wish list, if you're curious about what I have planned reading next, and want to surprise me. :)


i just noticed the ctrl-[ shortcut is mentioned in the post about command line history. well done.
one more thought: someone above mentioned the ubiquity of readline and emacs bindings. and the desirability of one standard set of bindings that works "everywhere". but if we are focusing on unix and the command line (cf, e.g., gui apps), i wonder if /bin/sh is not even more ubiquitous than readline. every system that runs scripts is likely have sh.
so from any shell one could type /bin/sh and then set -o vi. and then one is in familiar territory.
and according to the open standards group, if it's a terminal that supports command line editing, it should have vi mode.
i like both types of bindings, but i wonder which is really more ubiquitous.
Reply To This Comment