On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Chet Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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'.)
Yes you are correct I meant "set +o emacs". But I added that line just to be every explicit and to see how it changed read, if at all. (Answer: none). The program has the same effect if "set +o emacs" didn't exist. > >> #!/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'. Yes here I did, but again to be explicit. The more likely situation is that it isn't specified which means a programmer has to add that extra inference that there is a default which is relevant to bind but not read and it is set to "set +o emacs" for bind but not read. > 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? I would have things be more consistent and transparent. I appreciate that it might take some consideration to figure out how to make it so, and there are probably a couple ways to do so. > 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. When you are not in an interactive shell, then the only bindings one could possibly ever see are via "read -e". Correct? And a read *without* -e even doesn't turn on, say, emacs editing even if "set -o emacs" is in effect. So if this is the case, then when not in an interactive shell "bind -p" should report what "read -e" reads. Or "read -e" should give the same warning/error that "Line editing is off" that I am given to assume "bind -p" will eventually do. These make the bind/read actions more transparent and consistent. Finally, given that there is a close relation between what one does in "bind" and "read" when not in interactive mode, I think this should be made more explicit in bashref.texi: when "set -o emacs/vi" has an effect on read and when it doesn't. Perhaps some examples or perhaps to give detail in one place and *summarize* along with citing a reference to another section. Thanks.
