Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: apparent inconsistencies in readline documentation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:09:22 -0400
Organization: ITS, Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 64
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.154.1595880583.2739.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <74580fd0-3f5c-6aab-ec65-815ec18d6781@autistici.org> <c39f3267-e91f-0e20-1478-2f75bef00361@case.edu>
Reply-To: chet.ramey@case.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: chet.ramey@case.edu
To: Daniel Molina <lluvia@autistici.org>, bug-bash@gnu.org
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
Autocrypt: addr=chet.ramey@case.edu; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQGiBEEOsGwRBACFa0A1oa71HSZLWxAx0svXzhOZNQZOzqHmSuGOG92jIpQpr8DpvgRh40Yp AwdcXb8QG1J5yGAKeevNE1zCFaA725vGSdHUyypHouV0xoWwukYO6qlyyX+2BZU+okBUqoWQ koWxiYaCSfzB2Ln7pmdys1fJhcgBKf3VjWCjd2XJTwCgoFJOwyBFJdugjfwjSoRSwDOIMf0D /iQKqlWhIO1LGpMrGX0il0/x4zj0NAcSwAk7LaPZbN4UPjn5pqGEHBlf1+xDDQCkAoZ/VqES GZragl4VqJfxBr29Ag0UDvNbUbXoxQsARdero1M8GiAIRc50hj7HXFoERwenbNDJL86GPLAQ OTGOCa4W2o29nFfFjQrsrrYHzVtyA/9oyKvTeEMJ7NA3VJdWcmn7gOu0FxEmSNhSoV1T4vP2 1Wf7f5niCCRKQLNyUy0wEApQi4tSysdz+AbgAc0b/bHYVzIf2uO2lIEZQNNt+3g2bmXgloWm W5fsm/di50Gm1l1Na63d3RZ00SeFQos6WEwLUHEB0yp6KXluXLLIZitEJLQwQ2hldCBSYW1l eSAoQ2FzZSBzdGFuZGFyZCkgPGNoZXQucmFtZXlAY2FzZS5lZHU+iF8EExECAB8FAkPi19EC GwMHCwkIBwMCAQMVAgMDFgIBAh4BAheAAAoJELtYafBk6nSrelkAn31Gsuib7GcCZHbv5L5t VKYR9LklAJ4hzUHKA49Z0QXR+qCb80osIcmPSbkBDQRBDrBvEAQAkK6TAOKBEM+EC4j6V/7o /riVZqcgU5cid2qG9TXdwNtD9a3kvA/ObZBO93sX59wc6Bnwo4VJxsOmMlpGrAjJsxNwg3QH akEtf8LXRbVpj5xStdmBdQZUhIQyalo/2/TZq5OijtddUQcL5cs70hTv/FpT3wUvr2Xr8rjF 41IFEz8AAwcD/A0CZEGlzIrT5WCBnl6xBog/8vKiUCbarByat3d1mL6DbizvKNXQRTC9E/vE dENAWCQCjr75Bu55xT8n3SXGtWdDC5xmZ/P3OBYORP8yl8H8I1FIosWOFirbIeYdZPq8SPD1 HL+EXo9zSiHVrrZRJ19ooCKKbSdXHFCY+aJG+0KZiEkEGBECAAkFAkEOsG8CGwwACgkQu1hp 8GTqdKvjcACfZlkVCDwaz/NTO9cy3t69oWpVPNwAnRwe0qk/WL/gfhH346xh5B3HFbFN
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
In-Reply-To: <74580fd0-3f5c-6aab-ec65-815ec18d6781@autistici.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.22.103.226; envelope-from=chet.ramey@case.edu; helo=mpv1-2015.case.edu
X-Spam_score_int: -43
X-Spam_score: -4.4
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <c39f3267-e91f-0e20-1478-2f75bef00361@case.edu>
X-Mailman-Original-References: <74580fd0-3f5c-6aab-ec65-815ec18d6781@autistici.org>
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:16629

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/