The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash
manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as
screwing around with a terminfo file.
A bad implementation is not a bad design. And, in fact, the badness of the
implementation is even questionable in the light of bash's normal behavior
or the working .inputrc files I've been using for some time.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
--On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:57 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro" <jrm8...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I see. But seriously, readline does handle bindings and line editing for
bash. Except it's a function instead of a program and you think it's a
bad idea.
The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash
manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as
screwing around with a terminfo file.
--On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:31 PM +0800 sqweek <sqw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
2009/4/7 Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com>:
Keyboard
bindings for example; why couldn't they be handled by a program that
just does keyboard bindings + line editing, and writes finalized
lines to the shell.
Like... readline(3)?
No.
-sqweek
--On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:09 AM -0700 ron minnich
<rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Like... readline(3)?
one hopes not.
ron
