> This is completely putting the cart before the horse. And going down > that road creates a circular line of reasoning which has no end to the > loop cycle. Plus it is a radical change in fundamental behavior. > Please don't.
I disagree with the above, obviously. See below. > The entire reason that bash's readline emacs mode uses C-n and C-p is > that those are the emacs keys for next-line and previous-line. If > emacs were using M-p and M-n for previous and next then bash would > have done so too. Bash didn't make this up. It is using the keys > from emacs for emacs mode and those keys are C-n and C-p. Editing the > history is just like editing a file. C-p takes you to the previous > line. C-n takes you to the next line. Then, that model used in bash is precisely what I think should be changed (generalized), to match the emacs one: Emacs' minibuffer distinguishes between (a) different lines within the current command and (b) different commands. And that distinction is good, because it allows for a richer user interface: you can, on one hand, move across different commands (with M-p/M-n), and OTOH, move across different lines in the current selected command (with C-p/C-n). It is simply a richer (better) model, IMHO. > Now enter emacs. I mean literally. (I have been using emacs for a > very long time by the way. I am using it now.) Emacs has the feature > including of being able to edit the minibuffer and also being able to > run an inferior shell process in a buffer. Both are very similar > cases and should be discussed together. I definitely think they are different scenarios. But see below. > In those buffers if you want > to go to the previous line or the next line then what keys do you use? > You use C-p and C-n to go to the previous line or the next line. Of course: you are in a buffer in Emacs, and the standard commands to move across lines within a buffer are those (C-p/C-n). > But that is not editing the history. That is editing the buffer. Indeed. > There the previous and next lines are parts of the visible screen. It > isn't a history of the screen. For using bash in an inferior shell if > you want to recall shell history you can't use C-p and C-n because > those are shadowed by the emacs layer of keybindings that move > previous and next lines. Therefore M-p and M-n were the natural > second choice to navigate by adding another mental layer of > navigation. (Although emacs itself is keeping the input history.) > Same thing for the minibuffer. That is another example of the inconsistency I'd like to remove: In Emacs, the standard commands for moving across "histories" (commands, files, buffers, bookmarks, etc) are M-p and M-n. And for that reason, you have to use those keys for browsing the command history of the inferior shell (and C-p/C-n are, as always, employed for moving across lines in the current buffer). > So now people say, I am now used to using M-p and M-n in emacs to > avoid the C-p/C-n. Let's set that up for bash. (Of course you can > easily do this if you desire. Just do it. Several people suggested > it.) Yes, I can do it in my .bashrc, but the point is to remove this inconsistency upstream. > Well, let's say for discussion that you get used to that > setting. The entire argument so far is that people are "used to it". No. See above. The entire argument is that Emacs uses a more general and richer model, and it would be nice if Bash could adopt that same model. > Now people become used to navigating the previous line with M-p and > the next line with M-n in bash. Now they go to emacs. What do they > do there? They find that in emacs M-p and M-n *do not navigate* the > previous line and next line. They find that bash and emacs are once > again inconsistent! Not at all. They find that in Emacs, M-p and M-n, as always, are for navigating across consecutive entries (whether multiline or single-line) in every history of elements (including commands). And that would be perfectly consistent with Bash (if it used M-p/M-n for the same purpose, instead of C-p/C-n). > In that future time let me file a bug with emacs asking for them to > change their previous-line and next-line key bindings to be compatible > with the new bash bindings of M-p and M-n for previous and next line. > Why? Because they are "used to it". That request is just as valid as > this request to do so with bash. Not at all. See above. Againg: Emacs would not have to change anything to be consistent with Bash: * M-p/M-n for browsing the history. * C-p/C-n for moving across lines within a single entry/buffer. I think/hope that my point is clear enough already. -- Dani Moncayo
