On 9 August 2010 23:38, TJ Robotham <tj.robot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, it is an emacsism insomuch as bash's manpage specifically describes > the default line editing commands as emacs-style, in contrast to a vi-style > that > can be enabled in its place.
Sorry, I suppose I expected better than that even from bash. My mistake. On 10 August 2010 05:25, Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you > intend to exclude ‘Emacsisms’, I assume you must have some other standard of > what constitutes one than ‘bash doesn't do it’. It's not that I am intending to exclude emacsisms, it's that I'm intending to not waste keys. ^G has the same functionality as ^C, and the latter is "UNIX" so it has priority. On the other hand, the only way we could keybind ^D to EOF is if we were to have it do the same as ^C, which would be wasting a key - might as well have ^C, ^D, and ^G all do the same thing. On the other hand, ^D could delete, in which case we've keybound another function, which is far more useful than just letting you do the same thing in two different ways. I removed ^M in favour of ^J for the same reason. It's quite simple really. To be honest I'm surprised there's such a reaction to something so trivial as an added keybind. I'm glad this doesn't happen often or we'd never get anything done. cls
