[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: $EDITOR and “guix edit”
From: |
Liliana Marie Prikler |
Subject: |
Re: $EDITOR and “guix edit” |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:24:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.46.4 |
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. Since less used +N,
many other tools inherited it from it; POSIX requires -p for more since
2008 instead (ironically, it laments the incompatibility with vi and
ex, which use -c).
> 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
>
> This had been raised in #44272 [1]. The current fix is to wrap
> $EDITOR and then make the current correct call.
>
> The question is:
>
> do we tweak “guix edit” for behaving differently depending on
> $EDITOR?
>
> or
>
> do we provide some wrappers for the issues that already popped up?
I think we should at least document our behaviour, so that there's
"less surprise" (at the very least, we can point surprised folk towards
the manual/cookbook then). Going forward, we might want to call upon
some standards committee to finally have +LINE:COL or similar
standardized behaviour for $EDITOR and $VISUAL and then use that.
Cheers