Talk:GNU Readline

[Untitled]

GHC replaced readline with libedit, and then libedit recently (as of 6.10.3) with Haskeline, which is rather feature limited at the moment but under heavy development. I've Haskeline to the list of links, but if there are yet more readline-style libraries being implemented (I know of only these three), we may want to consider starting a separate page listing readline-type libraries.

"Criticism"

How can it be a point of criticism against Readline that software wanting to link against it does not abide by the terms it has been freely licensed by? That's akin to criticizing someone for not giving their belongings away for free. At best, you could call it a disadvantage to someone.--217.157.165.109 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit that started the "Criticism" section appears to be from a disgruntled user. Does anyone think the criticism section contains a neutral point of view? 124.168.145.191 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, then change the section title to something more neutral. The licensing terms of readline have been discussed again and again in many contexts. For example, somewhat famously, CLISP was not distributed under the GPL until Stallman convinced CLISP-developer Bruno Haible that their use of readline with CLISP constituted a violation of the GPL.[1] Similar discussions can be found on many mailing lists, e.g. concerning Firebird[2], Lua[3], ncftp[4], or PostgreSQL[5]. Stallman himself mentions readline as an example in his essay "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library". I guess what I am trying to say is that the controversies about readline's license are notable and should at least be mentioned in the article. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have reworked and significantly expanded the section about which we were talking. Thank you! — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

readline/openssl license issue

In Debian psql is compliled against libedit and uses libreadline at runtime due to license issues with OpenSSL

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607907 http://blog.endpoint.com/2011/08/debian-postgres-readline-psql-problem.html

Compukid (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GNU Readline license choice

The text on the article still reads as if the choice of using the GPL was something that was done because GNU readline was the only implementation that offered this kind of features in 1989.

This does not seem to be correct. In 1983, there was the Korn Shell with a command line history editor and in 1984, there was "bsh" with a command line history editor (based on my concepts from my original prototype implementation from 1982). The code from "bsh" is now used in the Bourne Shell. I cannot tell whether I was first or whether David was first, but this happened ~ 7 years before bash/GNU readline was written. So there was an alternative. I cannot speak for David and AT&T, but if people asked me, they could have received an implementation with a really free license at any time. Schily (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you contemplating providing a verifiable, published reliable source for any of your comments? (Based on your recent comments, none exists for your comments regarding bsh). TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As usual, you are wrong. BTW: it is not a problem that you don't know about what happened on UNIX before 1990, but it is a problem if you claim that you know better. Any person that is willing and able to use a search engine should be able to find notes about bsh. In special as bsh was used at Berlin Schools in the 1980s and as there was no loophole to escape from a restricted bsh. Schily (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's your problem to locate sources, without which none of your remarks have any credibility TEDickey (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that you never made any constructive remark in WP discussions, it seems that the credibility problem is at your side. Schily (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

When (if) you provide a reliable source, rather than relying upon personal attacks as your sole means of discussion, we can have something interesting to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned several times, there is reliable source, but you did never provide any verification for your claims. So stop your personal attacks and stay quiet or finally give a reliable source for your claims. Schily (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source? If it's not been published and is not verifiable by others, it cannot be a reliable source. If you had a reliable source, you might have found time to point to it. TEDickey (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking me and stop spreading false claims. bsh is mentioned in news articles locatable in the usenet archives from the mid 1980s, but you don't care. It is you who makes claims without giving reliable sources while on the other side, there are reliable sources for the existance of bsh in the public in the mid-1980s, so it is obvious that your claim is not verifiable as usual. Schily (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've a long term interest in this topic area. As for sources, I've seen none except for quotes by you, usually long after the fact. So: where are your independent sources which you could conceivably use in a constructive manner? TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The only long term interest I can see at your side so far is the interest in suppressing information in this area. As long as you are non-constructive, how do you expect the situation to change?

The information exists in the public, but it is not my duty to fight with the interface from google becoming worse, e.g. by preventing time range searches in the usenet archive. If you are really interested, you could spend that time yourself. I know what I wrote in the early 1980s and what's in the archives....

I recommend you to indicate interest and that you changed your mind by no longer suppressing information on Wikipedia. So how about reverting your information removal in the Bourne Shell article to demonstrate that you changed your mind? Schily (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you had a source, it would be so obscure (and likely irrelevant to the topic at hand) that only you could find it. So it's your problem. TEDickey (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a pity that you missed the chance to show that you are more than a person with the main interest to suppress valid information?

You had the chance to revert your removal of valid proven information on Bourne Shell but you did not do that. You instead continue to insist in repeating own claims for which you did not give any valid source. Schily (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Still no sources, no facts from you. ttyl TEDickey (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcuts cheatsheet

How would people feel about Kablamo's Readline Cheat Sheet and/or Shiar's readline cheat sheet as an external link? The article covers the keyboard shortcuts but in a less user-friendly way... II | (t - c) 09:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This would likely be preferable; I'm not convinced that we need to cover the key bindings here anyway -- should we do away with the whole table? Arzg (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Though I'm not entirely convinced that the linked cheat sheets are necessarily ideal, I absolutely agree with Arzg that the key bindings table should be removed—or at the very least, be thoroughly reworked.

The current list is

• not exhaustive;
• "random" (I see the allure of sorting it alphabetically, but a thematic approach like the first linked cheat sheet is much more approachable);
• not unequivocal (I couldn't find a single current readline manual/help file that specified the control + o keystroke; I also just now fixed the "research" wording which was just plain confusing).

While the listing might be an invaluable resource (it was to me!), after figuring out that it was less than excellent, I was pretty disillusioned and now firmly believe it to be confusing at best (in its current state, at least). --NicApicella (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the sample code on-topic?

While readline is a library, its notability stems from its history and widespread usage. The API itself is nothing special and may not belong on-topic. While there is a precedent of code on Wikipedia, this is a large program compared to the size of the article. What is it really adding? Arzg (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support the removal of the sample code section. ~★ nmaia ^d 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, removing then. Arzg (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is too much ripping out, done without anywhere near enough discussion. I'm restoring and asking that we get more than 30 minutes discussion. Msnicki (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaced empty for loop with while(1)

There is no semantic difference between the two, as both will loop continuously, but I thought it may be more understandable by less technical readers to change to a while loop.

Jflopezfernandez (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)