Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #16629

Re: apparent inconsistencies in readline documentation

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/25/20 12:21 PM, Daniel Molina wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found some aspects of readline documentation that seem inconsistent to
> me and I wanted to share them.
> 
> 1. The difference between backward-kill-line and unix-line-discard
> readline commands.
> 
> Documentation states:
> 
>        backward-kill-line (C-x Rubout)
>               Kill backward to the beginning of the line.
> 
>        unix-line-discard (C-u)
>               Kill backward from point to the  beginning  of  the 
> line.   The
>               killed text is saved on the kill-ring.
> 
> In both cases they kill from the point and killed text is saved in the
> kill-ring.

The difference is what happens with numeric arguments. Maybe that is what
should be added to the backward-kill-line description.

> 
> 2. Default key sequences vs. emacs key bindings [the default].
> 
> It is confusing to me that there are two defaults. Firstly, it can be read:
> 
>     EDITING COMMANDS
>            The  following  is  a list of the names of the commands and
>     the default
>            key sequences to which they are bound.  Command names without
>     an accom‐
>            panying key sequence are unbound by default.
> 
> On the other hand, emacs editing command are default:
> 
>     readline  offers  editing  capabilities  while the user is entering the
>            line.  By default, the line editing commands are similar  to 
>     those  of
>            emacs.  A vi-style line editing interface is also available.
> 
> An explicit list of emacs commands is maintained and commands do not
> always coincide (both being valid defaults in practice). For example,
> instead of C-x Rubout for backward-kill-line, emacs has
> 
>              "C-XC-?"  backward-kill-line

Rubout/DEL[ete]/C-? are the same key.

> 
> 3. Key-bindings in the emacs/vi list are written with capital letters
> (C-A), but not in the section with the description (C-a).

It's a writing convention. The behavior doesn't differ. Are there places
where this convention is used inconsistently?

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Re: apparent inconsistencies in readline documentation Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2020-07-27 16:09 -0400

csiph-web