Rocky Bernstein wrote: > Sorry for the delayed reply. > > As I now understand it, the situation right now seems a bit > inconsistent. "read -e" in a script uses emacs bindings by default even > if I've entered "set -o emacs" which I note in the following example:
(I'm assuming you mean `set +o emacs'.) > #!/usr/bin/env bash > set +o emacs > while read -e -p 'huh? ' line ; do > echo $line > done > > > But the behavior of "bind -p" is to show nothing, and possibly in the > future to give an error saying that "line editing" is not on. And this > seems inconsistent. In the context of a script, if "bind -p" isn't > reporting on what happens in "read -e", then what is it reporting on? > And if it is reporting about what happens in "read -e" then should it > not also "default" to emacs bindings when asked to print what is in effect? It's not that complicated. :-) You turned off line editing with `set +o emacs'. At this point, bind will report an error because editing is not enabled (debatable behavior, but it is what it is). You then invoke `read -e', explicitly asking for readline and line editing, and read a line of text. What would you have it do? Line editing is off, disabled with set +o, but read has been told to use readline to obtain the user's input. Since editing is disabled, readline uses its default behavior: emacs-like key bindings. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
