Re: comint-insert-input on non-command lines: A trivial fix, a quibble, and a bug

[Nick Roberts]

Luc Teirlinck writes:
 > Nick Roberts wrote:
 > 
 >    Again the name comint-copy-old-input doesn't suggest this behaviour and
 >    my preference would be not to have it.
 > 
 > Motivating the behavior of a function from its name seems backward.
 > One could always rename it to something like `comint-use-old-as-input'
 > or whatever.

Its not backward because its not motivating the behaviour but presumably
reflecting the intended purpose.

 > There also is the possibility of keeping both comint-copy-old-input
 > (maybe renamed) and comint-insert-input (_without_ the latest
 > adaptation to non-nil comint-use-prompt-regexp).
 > ...

There are all kinds of possibilities.  Its just a bit sad that we always tussle
with obscure parts of code which few will use and never reach a release.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob