Re: Weird Vi-mode behavior

[Matthieu Louvel de Monceaux <glory69@gmail.com>]

Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:37:02PM +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>   
>> Matthieu Louvel de Monceaux wrote:
>>     
>>> When we return from command mode to insert mode, we can't modify
>>> the text from the beginning to the spot where we got insert ...
>>> Definitely a weird behavior ...
>>>
>>> To get it too, just type 'foo folk x' for example.
>>> Then Esc, type 'b' to go to the previous word, then press 'i' to go 
>>> insert mode.
>>> Now you can't edit the 'foo ' part anymore.
>>>       
>> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>>     
> [...]
>
> I suspect he is refering to the traditional vi behavior of
> vi-backward-delete-char documented in "info zsh 'Modifying
> Text'"
>
> vi-backward-delete-char (unbound) (X) (^H)
>      Delete the character behind the cursor, without changing lines.
>      If in insert mode, this won't delete past the point where insert
>      mode was last entered.
>
> So I suspects he wants instead:
>
> if (($+terminfo[kbs])); then
>   bindkey -M viins $terminfo[kbs] backward-delete-char
> else
>   bindkey -M viins '^?' backward-delete-char
>   bindkey -M viins '^H' backward-delete-char
> fi
> (($+terminfo[kdch1])) &&
>   bindkey -M viins $terminfo[kdch1] delete-char
>
>
> The above trys to map the emacs-style (as opposed to vi style)
> backward-delete-char to the character sent by the backspace key
> (using the terminfo database if it's there, or hardcoding both
> ^? and ^H). It also maps delete-char to the character sent by
> the delete key if the terminfo database has that information.
> Note that on a number of terminals, backspace sends ^H and
> delete ^? while in a number of others backspace sends ^? and
> delete something else like the sequence \e[3~
>
>   
Thank you for your nice piece of information.
You want me to put those bindings in my zshrc file ?

But i don't understand that :

(($+terminfo[kdch1])) &&

You said that it maps delete-char to the char sent by the delete key.
Is it the role of the '&&' ?


M. Louvel de Monceaux