Re: [PATCH] Add active mark, face support; activate mark on paste

2020-04-08 Thread Chet Ramey
On 3/25/20 4:18 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:

>> I haven't touched the face code in display.c. I'd like to find a simpler
>> way to do it: the patch seems to have a lot of overhead and adds more
>> complexity than I'd like at a time when I'm trying to make the redisplay
>> code simpler. I don't know of a better way to do that yet.
> 
> The redisplay code needs to track the intended attribute state of each
> character in the buffer. I'm not sure what simpler approach might be
> viable. Fat characters? You'd still have to support the old char*
> interface, and you'd still need something like puts_face to "propertize"
> any strings we add to the buffer. A face system preserves the existing
> format of the buffer at least, and the redisplay update code is a logical
> extension of the current diffing logic.

OK, I've finished the initial integration of your patches, and I've done
some initial minimal testing. The updated version is in the devel git
branch on savannah; please take a look and see if it passes your tests.

Chet

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/



First lines of examples/startup-files/bashrc

2020-04-08 Thread Martin Schulte
Hello bash developers,

my apologies in advance if I'm overlooking something trivial but I'm
really wondering about the first lines in examples/startup-files/bashrc
(which are copied to Debian's skeleton ~/.bashrc):

case $- in
*i*);;
*)  return ;;
esac

Well, bash terminates sourcing the file if it is invoked
non-interactively.

But, as far as I understand, a non-interactive bash doesn't read
~/.bashrc at all - so shouldn't we just omit them?

Best regards,

Martin



Re: First lines of examples/startup-files/bashrc

2020-04-08 Thread Eduardo Bustamante
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Martin Schulte  wrote:
(...)
> But, as far as I understand, a non-interactive bash doesn't read
> ~/.bashrc at all - so shouldn't we just omit them?

There are exceptions. One of them being SSH, see:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/shell.c?h=ea31c00845c858098d232bd014bf27b5a63a668b#n1095

> /* If we were run by sshd or we think we were run by rshd, execute
> ~/.bashrc if we are a top-level shell. */