I looked at the code a little, but I couldn't find the place that does
the fallback part. (You're defining a `libreadline-path' which AFAICS
isn't used.) But it looks like you're using the same interface for both
editline and readline -- right? If so, then I think that it's better to
just keep
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones to...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
If anyone reading this has an interesting or unusual terminal they
like to use, please run
$ raco pkg install ansi
$ racket -l ansi/test-raw
I didn't run it, but guessing common keys isn't too difficult,
Okay, here's another idea.
I have parametrized the readline collection over the readline/edit/etc.
library. You can do:
(require editline)
For the editline equivalent.
It also falls back to no line editing (rather than throwing an exception),
if the library is not there.
The source is here:
[I'll reply to your email separately...]
Sorry for not sending the results I had earlier re parsing input keys.
Just to get this recorded here in case someone wants to do this in the
future:
I was first optimistic about the prospect of parsing keys in a way that
works for all terminals, provided
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Leif Andersen l...@leifandersen.net wrote:
Okay, here's another idea.
I have parametrized the readline collection over the readline/edit/etc.
library. You can do:
(require editline)
For the editline equivalent.
It also falls back to no line editing
My goal was not to replace xrepl, but to provide basic line editing
support to the default repl without licensing violations or massively
increasing the distribution size.
If you're talking about implementing line editing yourself, then my
personal reaction to that would be wonderful, but doing
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Leif Andersen l...@leifandersen.net wrote:
My goal was not to replace xrepl, but to provide basic line editing
support to the default repl without licensing violations or massively
increasing the distribution size.
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
If you're talking about implementing line editing yourself, then my
personal reaction to that would be wonderful, but doing it properly
is something that is difficult and easy to underestimate
I've already done this
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
sa...@cs.indiana.edu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
If you're talking about implementing line editing yourself, then my
personal reaction to that would be wonderful, but doing it properly
is
Eli Barzilay wrote on 12/02/2014 09:31 PM:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Leif Andersen l...@leifandersen.net wrote:
Just to clarify a bit, we were more thinking of extending the default
repl to have line editing features, rather then making xrepl the
default,
If you're talking about
Do you have in mind making xrepl intended to be part of Minimal
Racket? If not, what's the mechanism for `racket` using xrepl when
it's available?
A similar question applies to libeditline. Currently, for Linux and
other Unix platforms (not counting natipkg variants), our convention
is that
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Do you have in mind making xrepl intended to be part of Minimal
Racket? If not, what's the mechanism for `racket` using xrepl when
it's available?
I can think of a few ways of doing this.
1 Just make xrepl part of
On Nov 25, 2014 11:01 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
We can't link to libreadline by default in a Racket
distribution, and since libeditline isn't typically included with
Linux distributions (as far as I can tell), it seems like we haven't
solved any problem unless we provide
Just to clarify a bit, we were more thinking of extending the default repl
to have line editing features, rather then making xrepl the default, or
having xrepl use libedit rather that libreadline.
It would not be too terrible if we required a user to have it installed to
use it. (It's included in
My understanding of the licensing issues is that if the code works with
both libeditline and libreadline then it isn't a derived work of
readline, and therefore could be licensed under the LGPL, like the rest of
Racket. Furthermore, turning use of libeditline on by default wouldn't be
linking to
15 matches
Mail list logo
