| 1 |
On 05-10-2021 09:35:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 09:18 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > > Final question, am I understanding correctly that normal lines are not |
| 4 |
> > > > prefixed with something? Would it be, for consistency, alignment, and |
| 5 |
> > > > certainty of selecting rows something to use a prefix for those lines |
| 6 |
> > > > too (assuming they aren't at this point)? |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > I don't know, we've never done that. I suppose it would be possible but |
| 9 |
> > > it is even more controversial and unlike the proposed changes, it would |
| 10 |
> > > actually require mangling the process output. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > If I remember correctly, Portage already does. In which case, doing |
| 13 |
> > this (even if it were adding leading spaces) would not be that much |
| 14 |
> > work? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'm afraid this is not that simple. You need to account for all escape |
| 18 |
> sequences that can affect editing already output data including clean |
| 19 |
> handling of line wrapping. In the end, we'd have to have a complete |
| 20 |
> detachtty-class terminal emulator inside Portage. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Fair enough, thanks for looking into it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Fabian |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 28 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives