Re: comint-insert-input on non-command lines: A trivial fix, a quibble, and a bug

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 >    There is also a comment by comint-use-prompt-regexp (also present in
 >    21.3):
 > 
 >    ;; Note: If it is decided to purge comint-prompt-regexp from the source
 >    ;; entirely, searching for uses of this variable will help to identify
 >    ;; places that need attention.
 > 
 >    I presume use of comint-prompt-regexp preceded the use of fields.
 >    Perhaps this should be purged as there's no need to use two methods and
 >    this would reduce the maintenance overhead.
 > 
 > Perhaps, but that doesn't address the original issue, namely that in
 > comint-mode "C-c RET" is now less useful that it had been.

You're quoting my reply to Luc.  My reply to you, which you appear to have
ignored, did address the original issue.

 >    From: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
 >    Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 13:49:19 +0900
 > 
 >    Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:
 > 
 >    BTW, that function's use of fields is not well written.
 > 
 >    Also, it uses `posn-set-point' _after_ getting the value of (point),
 >    which doesn't make any sense to me.
 > 
 >    The following seems to fix both problems . . .
 > 
 >    I'll commit this unless somebody objects.
 > 
 > But it doesn't address the original problem:  "C-c RET" still does
 > nothing when invoked on an output line.  Please find a solution below
 > that merges your changes with the guts of the comint-copy-old-input
 > definition from 21.3, restoring the original behavior.  If that is
 > satisfactory to everyone, then I will undertake to ensure that all of
 > the documentation is consistent.

I've already said why I don't like it.  We haven't reached an agreement
yet that this behaviour is desirable.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob