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: Binding Containing Escape Key Fails to Escape History Search
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:41:53 -0500
Lines: 21
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.639.1572896519.13325.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <20191022025648.GA19869@midnight> <6fcf6dd7-a0b5-8868-797c-cefbcc3346a2@case.edu> <20191031223246.GA8439@midnight> <72ba8e76-5962-3855-2361-d05cf34569a1@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: chet.ramey@case.edu, bug-bash@gnu.org
To: sunnycemetery@gmail.com
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1
In-Reply-To: <20191031223246.GA8439@midnight>
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:15566

On 10/31/19 6:32 PM, sunnycemetery@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2019-10-30 13:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Incremental search doesn't do macro translation like that.
> 
> I see.  Is this considered a shortcoming?
> 
> Being able to bind \ef and Alt+f to different commands in various programs 
> is useful, but without bash coming along for the ride, I might have to go 
> back to XTerm*altSendsEscape.  This is, of course, only one usage case.

This isn't close to true. If \ef and Alt+f generate distinct character
sequences, you can bind them separately. If they don't, you can't. This
has nothing to do with whether or not incremental searching expands
keyboard macros.


-- 
``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/