> On Jan 14, 2021, at 15:12, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, in that case I think it's best to fix this in libedit instead. Huh? There’s no issue in libedit, only unclear documentation. The application is the right place to store the prompt: it can be in a static buffer, or a constant string, in which case libedit has no need to save its own copy.
Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- From: June Bug <june@causal.agency>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:22:12 -0500
- Cc: dash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20210114201257.GA15898@gondor.apana.org.au>
- References: <20210113061802.GA6215@gondor.apana.org.au> <F9311B17-4FC9-4623-9512-8022D4B96BFB@causal.agency> <20210114201257.GA15898@gondor.apana.org.au>
- References:
- Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- From: Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- From: June Bug
- Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- From: Herbert Xu
- Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- Next by Date: getopts appears to not be shifting $@ when consuming options
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v2] Cache the expanded prompt for editline
- Next by thread: set -I is not required by standard, and does not match bash
- Index(es):
 |