From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: a suggested solution for better external' completion in certain emacs modes Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87smal64nc.fsf@orebokech.com> <87wtx45rag.fsf_-_@tapsellferrier.co.uk> <87k6svzzp5.fsf_-_@tapsellferrier.co.uk> <87is8bwf39.fsf@tapsellferrier.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1100265714 3879 80.91.229.6 (12 Nov 2004 13:21:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:21:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 12 14:21:41 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CSbMz-00088m-00 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:21:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSbVX-00069j-5D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:30:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSbVQ-00069T-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:30:24 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSbVP-00069H-J6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:30:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSbVP-00069E-Ef for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:30:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CSbMQ-0005mh-5t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:21:06 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 19202 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2004 13:20:30 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Nov 2004 13:20:30 -0000 Original-To: Nic Ferrier In-Reply-To: <87is8bwf39.fsf@tapsellferrier.co.uk> (Nic Ferrier's message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:12:42 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:29778 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29778 Nic Ferrier writes: >> I thought these command would go thru the pty to the subprogram. >> Are you thinking that Readline would talk to Emacs thru a socket? >> That's ok if you make it work. > > No. I think they would go through the pty to the subprogram. I was > suggesting that Readline would stop seeing the pty as a pty and treat > it more like a stream. That's a bad idea, imo. Consider if the subprogram is a shell that can launch another program. Then the readline extensions should only be used when the shell has control, but not when other programs are running. But how can you know when the shell is reading from the stream, or when it is the sub-subprogram that's reading? If you go to the trouble of improving this, it would be better to have a control socket into readline which could ALSO inform comint whether the readline API is currently active or not, i.e. it would send messages like: rl_ready rl_hold rl_continue rl_exit to inform you of whether it makes any sense to use any of the rl_api functions. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk