This is ok nicm
I wouldn't be surprised if WIDECHAR build of libedit has other issues,
getting it going is still on my list of things to do :-).
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:30:42PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:52PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Hi
We
Would it be better maybe to do the check in the Width() macro itself?
Yes indeed. New diff below.
-#define Width(c) wcwidth(c)
+#define Width(c) (wcwidth(c) == -1 ? 0 : wcwidth(c))
But this calls wcwidth() to be invoked twice, which is ugly. As a
minimum, make this an inline
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:44:10PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Would it be better maybe to do the check in the Width() macro itself?
Yes indeed. New diff below.
-#define Width(c) wcwidth(c)
+#define Width(c) (wcwidth(c) == -1 ? 0 : wcwidth(c))
But this calls wcwidth() to be
Hi
This is fine with me.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:04:26PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:44:10PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Would it be better maybe to do the check in the Width() macro itself?
Yes indeed. New diff below.
-#define Width(c) wcwidth(c)
These callers in libedit might get confused if wcwidth() returns -1.
Note how the result ct_visual_width() is used in refresh.c:
refresh.c: h += ct_visual_width(*cp);
Index: chartype.c
===
RCS file:
Hi
We don't currently build a wide char libedit but comments inline:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:46:24PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
These callers in libedit might get confused if wcwidth() returns -1.
Note how the result ct_visual_width() is used in refresh.c:
refresh.c:
