Am Donnerstag, dem 16.11.2023 um 16:25 +0100 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 10:43 +0100 schrieb Simon > > Tournier: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The command “guix edit” returns “+N path/to/file” that is then > > > passed to $EDITOR. Therefore $EDITOR needs the command line: > > > > > > $ $EDITOR +N /path/to/file > > > > > > Well, that is accepted by many $EDITOR, to my knowledge. At > > > least, Emacs, Vi or less are fine with it. > > This appears to be a somewhat archaic convention. > > “Archaic” is one way to describe it; I’d have said “standard”. :-) > (Implemented by Vi(m), Emacs, Nano, less, more, etc.) I said “archaic”, because POSIX specifically says “all options should be preceded by the '-' character”, with special exceptions for more, etc. for backwards compatibility. It's a bit of a pain, because the argument that used to be standard among all those tools has (in POSIX at least) been replaced by several dashed ones.
> > > However, some other $EDITOR does not. I have in mind “kate” or > > > “VSCode“, > > > > > > $ kate -l N path/to/file > > > $ code --goto path/to/file:N > > It’d be nice to support these as well. However, how do we know we’re > dealing with kate or VSCode? By checking the basename of $EDITOR? > Kinda ugly and brittle, but probably better than nothing. Maybe we can check for a guix_editor shell function and invoke that rather than EDITOR if defined? Cheers
