On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:42:57PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > probably. I see some occasional comments to the effect that there are > patches to make bash work properly with UTF-8, which implies that it > does not. bash most certainly does NOT work well with UTF. Here's my .inputrc, along with a comment at the end venting some of my frustration: $ cat ~/.inputrc set editing-mode vi #This is because editing-mode vi puts us in input mode by default: set keymap vi-command #This prints ls -F output in autocomplete candidates: set visible-stats on #Here's some stuff for internationalization: set meta-flag on #conservar bit 8 en entrada de teclado set output-meta on #conservar bit 8 en salida por terminal set convert-meta off #no convertir secuencias de escape #export LC_CTYPE=ISO_8859_1 #For some reason, when I type international characters, they still appear like # weird backslashed numbers, but at least readline doesn't reject them, and they # look like what they're supposed to when they come out the other end ;-) ...so yes, it works, but no, it ain't pretty :-( - Dave BTW - Does Mutt work out of the box with ncursesw? All the weird allignment issues are magnified several times in my setup, since as I noted in another recent mailing I run a UTF Screen inside a UTF Screen inside a UTF Screen inside a UTF console (making three layers of ncurses + the ncurses of Mutt), so by the time a line gets from Mutt to my monitor it's usually in pretty bad shape. -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp1JHaRrn1nm.pgp
Description: PGP signature