Hi Ruda, rsyk...@disroot.org wrote on Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:19:42PM +0000:
> after reading the sh man page I have been wondering: > When is the line editing mode described just after the > 'COMMAND HISTORY AND COMMAND LINE EDITING' heading relevant? Near the beginning, the sh(1) manual page contains this paragraph: This version of sh is actually ksh in disguise. As such, it also supports the features described in ksh(1). This manual page describes only the parts relevant to a POSIX compliant sh. If portability is a concern, use only those features described in this page. In particular, the section "COMMAND HISTORY AND COMMAND LINE EDITING" describes only those features of ksh(1) "Vi editing mode" required by POSIX. Wo do not provide a shell or an execution mode of ksh providing exactly those features and no extensions. I think shells exist that aim for being a minimal implementation of only POSIX features. For example, dash(1) may be one of them (i'm not sure, though). Certainly, ksh(1) isn't one of those shells. > [I know there exist vi and emacs modes, but I cannot make my > ksh shell behave along the lines described in the mentioned > section (i.e different from both emacs and vi modes).] As with any bug report: what *exactly* are you doing, what exactly happens, and what exactly would you expect to happen instead? Yours, Ingo
