Re: QSHELL commands (was: Stmf copy with add)

On Wednesday 17 October 2001 01:17, James Rich wrote:
> I promise to shut up soon about this topic :)

Dont.. it's relatively technical compared to that common stuff....

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Brendan Bispham wrote:
> > There's no reason why "we" cant go out there and change Linux's BASH
> > shell for an iseries QCL interactive shell (iQISH) that aliased
> > predictable commands to the Unix equivalents.... DSPPFM=CAT,
> > WRKACTJOB=TOP, WRKUSRJOB=ps
>
> Eeeeek!!  You hadn't better wreck all those good unix commands with the
> as/400 dull-as-can-be-do-it-the-business-way-or-no-way commands!! :)

you sound like you've shuddered :)
>
> Seriously, if you want to do this it's easy - and you don't have to go
> around duplicating one command just to call it something else.  In your
> shell startup scripts (.cshrc for tcsh, .profile for bash) just put:
>
> alias WRKACTJOB 'top'
> alias WRKUSRJOB 'ps'
> alias DSPPFM 'cat'

But this wouldn't list all the WRK* commands, or group all commands by JOB...
you must agree that Unix and green-screen would enjoy a new lease of life if
people could predict what command they needed... which is the essence of a
GUI window - it groups related functions...

>
> > etc. F4 prompting could be indexed or extrapolated from the man pages so
> > CP could be entered as CPYF FROMFILES(file1 file2) TOLIB(/home/data) or
> > CPYF F4 with F1 help for the parameters, F9/10 for 'advanced
> > parameters'....
>
> Prompting might be interesting to see for in a shell, but only if it stuck
> with the sytax of that shell and of the commands the shell runs.  I
> suppose you could write a shell that has its own set of commands that it
> interprets before running the real system commands.  Most shells probably
> do this to some degree already.  Just don't expect me to install it on my
> computers :)

I agree.. the important thing is that commands should document themselves in
the paramter options, if not the command name itself. After all if all these
kind souls have collaborated to bring a free 'grep' utility to me why should
I be so churlish as to insist it be called SCNF or something that 'takes 3-4
minutes to learn'.... And if I dont know the difference between grep, egrep
and fgrep... well I'm just not the sort of person who should be running Linux
:)

The utility Im looking at would be similar to the MAN command, only it would
separate the OPTIONS, and text to provide the parameters and help text....
which would be accessible from the command line via FKeys.

>
> > Most Unix folks would shudder at the idea, but I think Linux is crying
> > out for a uniform CL interface... and who better to design it than those
> > who appreciate OS400 :)
>
> Unix (and other platforms) already has one, in fact several: perl, bash,
> tcsh, tcl, etc.  There are already a number of scripting languages and
> shells to match nearly every taste (unless you happen to like the taste
> of os/400).
>

Well Im not really concentrating on the language, more the shell... for
instance tabbing to fill out the names is indispensable and is nothing to do
with Perl or tcl... just bash(?).
Taking that a step further, why not allow a TAB  to fill out the paramters
after --, eg:

cp --re(TAB) creates
cp --recursive

or perhaps after typing in a command:
cp -r -u * /backup
you could pres Ctl-P to make it readable;
cp --recursive --update * /backup
And if you pressed F1 or F4 somewhere it would show the help (from MAN) for
that option or command, with a window. In AIX, SMIT already does this for
system commands. I'm suggesting it should be brought out into the open source
world...

> Of course if someone really does want to design such a shell/scripting
> language/interface I don't discourage it.  Quite the opposite - the
> machine exists for you to do with as you please.  The machines serve us,
> we do not serve the machines.
>

Well said. I'm addressing the oft-held belief that AS400 people have to
suffer 'open standards' being imposed on us... and saying that actually
there's a history of CPF ideals being ported over to there. This would just
be a logical extension.

> Finally (and I realize that business-types may have no room to entertain
> such thoughts - my boss certainly doesn't) think of the "character" or
> personality of the system.  One reason I like unix is because it has
> quirks.  My favorite is the 'less' command.  'less' is a play on the
> 'more' command, a screen paginator (DOS has the 'more' command).  'less'
> is an improvement on the 'more' command and, well, less is more!

I agree - I like Linux because it keeps on piquing my curiosity, but if I
didnt think it was useful for business I wouldnt bother with it....