4 ms·

Zsh's line editor is so flexible that it renders most uses of edit-command-line unnecessary. It does more than just let you rebind keys. It also lets you create

Zsh's line editor is so flexible that it renders most uses of edit-command-line unnecessary. It does more than just let you rebind keys. It also lets you create your own text editing operations called widgets. The stock widgets covers almost all the text editing operations necessary for CLI editing, which even includes things like Vim's text objects and surround bindings. But I also define my own widgets where it falls short.

aidenn0 3y ago
There's a long-tail of editor shortcuts I use. I find it a bit wasteful to try and re-implement them in every single program I use that takes text input. Now, if someone else has implemented it already, then I'm happy to use it, but 99% of the time they will have implemented at most the 100 most common shortcuts that they use, which is unlikely to make me happy. I should point out that there is exactly one case of someone implemented enough of vim to make me happy, and that's evil-mode. Even there I had to tweak some settings because the defaults were too different from vim (specifically the + and * registers behave completely wrong by default).
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  But this is the shell we're talking about, one of the primary interface for development work, so I think the effort is worth it. By relying heavily on edit-command-line, you have to choose between coping with suboptimal keybindings and opening a text editor every time you want to run a command. Also, zsh's vi bindings are surprisingly good. Obviously, it won't be useful as a full-fledged text editor. But it's more than good enough for command line editing. It even has visual mode and registers, which you rarely see implemented in an interpreter. It's true that it requires some configuration though. At least around 20 lines. Zsh's vi mode inherits vi's quirks that are normally disabled in Vim, including the weird backspace behavior in insert mode. Those have to be overridden individually. Text objects and surround bindings need to be explicitly bound too.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
I mean, pure emacs nerds just use eshell or similar. Then the keybindings match 100% and things like "more" get turned into "open this in a buffer" etc. Though you give up full bash compatibility. but there's "shell" if you want bash (or zsh for that matter) inside emacs itself, without the fancy stuff eshell gives you. I've never fully made this transition, but have at times played with it, when I've been feeling extra-emacs-excited. https://www.masteringemacs.org/article/running-shells-in-emacs-overview https://www.masteringemacs.org/article/running-shells-in-ema...
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  Eshell is neat, and I especially like the TRAMP integration. But I've yet to see anyone completely replace their terminal with it though. There are some usability problems like company mode hanging Emacs on every key input when used with Eshell on remote directories. Also, Emacs in general can't replace tabbed terminals because there are so many blocking operations that make it unresponsive for a while.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Yeah, makes sense. And the blocking unresponsive thing, I guess I'm just flabbergasted we're still here after all these years. I know every few months there's a new "I'm rewriting emacs/something-like-emacs" and it's, yeah, a nogo. But I'd actually just really like it if someone really really tried and addressed some of the architecture things :-(

aidenn0 3y ago

There's a long-tail of editor shortcuts I use. I find it a bit wasteful to try and re-implement them in every single program I use that takes text input. Now, if someone else has implemented it already, then I'm happy to use it, but 99% of the time they will have implemented at most the 100 most common shortcuts that they use, which is unlikely to make me happy. I should point out that there is exactly one case of someone implemented enough of vim to make me happy, and that's evil-mode. Even there I had to tweak some settings because the defaults were too different from vim (specifically the + and * registers behave completely wrong by default).

soraminazuki 3y ago
But this is the shell we're talking about, one of the primary interface for development work, so I think the effort is worth it. By relying heavily on edit-command-line, you have to choose between coping with suboptimal keybindings and opening a text editor every time you want to run a command. Also, zsh's vi bindings are surprisingly good. Obviously, it won't be useful as a full-fledged text editor. But it's more than good enough for command line editing. It even has visual mode and registers, which you rarely see implemented in an interpreter. It's true that it requires some configuration though. At least around 20 lines. Zsh's vi mode inherits vi's quirks that are normally disabled in Vim, including the weird backspace behavior in insert mode. Those have to be overridden individually. Text objects and surround bindings need to be explicitly bound too.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

I mean, pure emacs nerds just use eshell or similar. Then the keybindings match 100% and things like "more" get turned into "open this in a buffer" etc. Though you give up full bash compatibility. but there's "shell" if you want bash (or zsh for that matter) inside emacs itself, without the fancy stuff eshell gives you. I've never fully made this transition, but have at times played with it, when I've been feeling extra-emacs-excited. https://www.masteringemacs.org/article/running-shells-in-emacs-overview https://www.masteringemacs.org/article/running-shells-in-ema...

soraminazuki 3y ago
Eshell is neat, and I especially like the TRAMP integration. But I've yet to see anyone completely replace their terminal with it though. There are some usability problems like company mode hanging Emacs on every key input when used with Eshell on remote directories. Also, Emacs in general can't replace tabbed terminals because there are so many blocking operations that make it unresponsive for a while.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Yeah, makes sense. And the blocking unresponsive thing, I guess I'm just flabbergasted we're still here after all these years. I know every few months there's a new "I'm rewriting emacs/something-like-emacs" and it's, yeah, a nogo. But I'd actually just really like it if someone really really tried and addressed some of the architecture things :-(