| From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
| Date: | 2005-12-03 15:14:46 |
| Message-ID: | 011801c5f81c$4c920d60$0f01a8c0@zaphod |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-ports |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. Why is
> it Readline?
"The GNU Readline Library" is usually referred to as "Readline", not
"libreadline". The offical name for "libedit" is really "Libedit".
See e.g.:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libedit/
http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/readline/rltop.html
IMHO libreadline does not sound good.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-03 15:15:25 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 14:53:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 15:27:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 14:53:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 15:27:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 14:53:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |