On 12/8/19 7:15 PM, sunnycemet...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2019-11-04 14:41, Chet Ramey wrote:
If \ef and Alt+f generate distinct character sequences, you can bind them
separately. If they don't, you can't. This has nothing to do with whether
or not incremental searching expands keyboard macros.
I
On 2019-11-04 14:41, Chet Ramey wrote:
If \ef and Alt+f generate distinct character sequences, you can bind
them separately. If they don't, you can't. This has nothing to do with
whether or not incremental searching expands keyboard macros.
In that case, how would one go about binding æ such
On 10/31/19 6:32 PM, sunnycemet...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2019-10-30 13:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
Incremental search doesn't do macro translation like that.
I see. Is this considered a shortcoming?
Being able to bind \ef and Alt+f to different commands in various programs
is useful, but without ba
On 2019-10-30 13:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
Incremental search doesn't do macro translation like that.
I see. Is this considered a shortcoming?
Being able to bind \ef and Alt+f to different commands in various programs
is useful, but without bash coming along for the ride, I might have to
go b
On 10/22/19 5:45 PM, sunnycemet...@gmail.com wrote:
> Moreover, the history search should be closed when the cursor is moved
> (e.g. as with the left arrow key bound to backward-char), but the cursor
> does not move (even with “æ” bound directly to forward-word).
Because that character doesn't ter
On 10/21/19 10:56 PM, sunnycemet...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given the following binding...
>
>> "æ": "\ef"
>
> ... should not pressing “æ” during a history search end the search--the
> same as pressing Escape followed by “f”? This does not happen with 5.0.3
> (screencast attached).
Incremental searc
Moreover, the history search should be closed when the cursor is moved
(e.g. as with the left arrow key bound to backward-char), but the cursor
does not move (even with “æ” bound directly to forward-word).
