On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
Behavior is not indicative of good design. It just means that the bandaids heaped upon bash (and X11, and...) make it work acceptably. Try env | wc -l in bash. Now tell me why that value is so big. > > 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > >
