>> The use of C-p and C-n for this is pervasive and long-lived. There is
>> no reason to break 25 years of backwards compatibility and compatibility
>> with other shells to make this change.
>
> I thought that compatibility with GNU Emacs was important too.
> Perhaps the proposed (Emacs-compatib
> I said in an earlier message that the two programs use different mental
> models. Here's what I meant.
Currently they are different, indeed, but I think it would be
perfectly possible, and desirable, to remove that inconsistency.
> Readline is one-dimensional: everything it deals with is a lin
> 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 reaso
On 2/13/14, 9:40 AM, Dani Moncayo wrote:
> Hello, Bash developers,
>
> (I know little about Bash, so I apologize beforehand if I say
> something inaccurate or nonsensical)
>
> Bug #16740 was filed today against the Emacs package, asking to remove
> an inconsistency between the keys employed by Em
Dani Moncayo wrote:
> Emacs uses M-p/M-n to browse the minibuffer history (and C-p/C-n to
> move to the previous/next line in a multi-line buffer), whereas Bash
> uses C-n/C-p for browsing the command history (and doesn't use M-p/M-n
> for anything, AFAIK).
>
> It would be nice to remove this inco
Hello, Bash developers,
(I know little about Bash, so I apologize beforehand if I say
something inaccurate or nonsensical)
Bug #16740 was filed today against the Emacs package, asking to remove
an inconsistency between the keys employed by Emacs and Bash to browse
the history of commands. See:
