Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp))

In article <[email protected]>,
Geoff Clare  <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things
>in its vi mode don't quite work the same way.

I've never used ksh (other than to quickly test a quick thing here and
there), so I don't know how its vi mode works.  That said:

    1) The idea of compressing "vi" down to a single line editor is
    problematic in any case.  It will always be an approximation of the
    real thing.  In fact, if I want to do anything non-trivial in command
    line editing (in bash), I use "fc" (which invokes real vi on a temp
    file) rather than doing "inline" editing.

    2) There are a few things that bug me about bash's vi mode, but I've
    mostly accepted/gotten used to them over the years. Here are just a
    couple (there are others, but these are what comes immediately to mind):
	a) That you are in insert mode by default.  This is just not how vi
	is supposed to be used.  tcsh gets this one right.
	b) That the wildcard is "*" (as if you were in glob mode) rather
	than ".*" as it would be in real vi.

Does ksh improve on either of these points?

-- 
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.