Re: find s-expr in the REPL?

[Daniel Llorens del Río]

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.