[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: find s-expr in the REPL?
From: |
Daniel Llorens del Río |
Subject: |
Re: find s-expr in the REPL? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:03:33 +0200 |
On 25 Sep, 2006, at 18:07, address@hidden 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.