Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-11-04 14:41 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-11-04 14:41 -0500 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Binding Containing Escape Key Fails to Escape History Search Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2019-11-04 14:41 -0500
| From | Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-04 14:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Binding Containing Escape Key Fails to Escape History Search |
| Message-ID | <mailman.639.1572896519.13325.bug-bash@gnu.org> |
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/
Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug
csiph-web