Path: utzoo!telly!philmtl!atha!aunro!myrias!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!HUB.UCSB.EDU!bfox%vision
From: bfox%vision@HUB.UCSB.EDU (Brian Fox)
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: slight readline modification
Message-ID: <8911152302.AA27972@hub.ucsb.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 89 23:01:02 GMT
References: <8911152057.AA14292@docboy>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: bfox%cornu@hub.ucsb.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 35


   Date: 	Wed, 15 Nov 89 13:57:32 NST
   From: jeff1@docboy.cs.mun.ca (Jeff Sparkes)

	   NOTE: it appears that Brian is rabidly anti-vi.  Me, I live in
   both worlds, but had gotten used to vi in ksh, so I decided to add it
   to vi.

I am not rabid anything, and I am not anti-vi.  I am pro
good-software.  I am pro choice.  This means that I will (and have)
included code to handle cases that are not of interest to me, such as
vi mode.  I am even willing to spend time cleaning up and merging
other peoples code if enough people want the features.

    >    grady> I currently use tcsh, and one thing it does that bash's
    >    grady> readline doesn't is put the cursor at the _end_ of the line
    >    grady> when you start moving through the history (in either vi or
    >    grady> emacs mode).  Having the cursor at the end is slightly
    >    better
    > 
    > This is simply false.  The cursor moves to the end of the line in
    > emacs mode.  Perhaps it doesn't do this in vi-mode?
    > 
    > Brian

   It doesn't.  Sort of makes sense to me that it should be at the end,
   but ksh didn't do it that way.

I am not particularly interested in the way that Ksh does things.  I
am interested in implementing a good shell, called Bash.

I would imagine that keeping the cursor in the same column is the
right thing.

Brian