Perhaps the proposed (Emacs-compatible) behavior could be made
> optional?
Actually, we are already talking about an option in bash: the "emacs"
option (set -o emacs), which according to the manual [1], is meat for
"Use an emacs-style line editing interface". Well, IMHO, Bash
curre
n width that ends up getting wrapped (common), as long as such a
> command can be specified and implemented.
>
> Chet
>
> --
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
> ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
--
Dani Moncayo
r 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
being edited.
WDYT?
--
Dani Moncayo
