On 25 Sep, 2006, at 18:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to check what you mean here: in many cases a line is a single sexp, so there is no difference - so I presume you're talking about the case where a sexp is split across lines, e.g. guile> (define (foo) guile> (bar)) and saying that when you do up-arrow after this you'd like to see guile> (define (foo) (bar)) Is that right?
Absolutely, that's what I mean. Actually, maybe I'd prefer up-arrow to show
guile> (define (foo) ... (bar)) just as I would have typed it. But that's a minor detail.
I think this is just a corollary of the above, isn't it? In other words, if you do "^R foo" you'd also like to see the combined line, as shown just above.
That's right.
It seems to me that these could most easily be achieved by modifying what readline thinks its history is. I'm sure this is doable, but someone needs to look into the details.
The idea is, I guess, to have readline split its history not by newlines but by matching parentheses at the top level, at least when they cross line boundaries. I'll look into that, thanks.
I'm not familiar with readline macros. Can they do this kind of line combination?
I'm not familiar with them either. They seem to provide good search capabilities, so that's why I proposed them.
_______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
