Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: \M-^C vs \203 vs \x83 as visual representations of bytes

X-seq: zsh-workers 52610
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: \M-^C vs \203 vs \x83 as visual representations of bytes
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:54:01 -0800
Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/52610>
In-reply-to: <CAA=-s3yLhwkd7zy-2Fwky4DEOfoUD8UE9D14LqyY+yr3DPSyDA@mail.gmail.com>
List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
References: <20240225090751.yqb23ewm4pgocg7e@chazelas.org> <CAA=-s3yLhwkd7zy-2Fwky4DEOfoUD8UE9D14LqyY+yr3DPSyDA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 9:26 AM Mark J. Reed <markjreed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  The M- "meta" syntax is something I associate with Emacs key-binding

Which is why zsh prints it that way, so that error output is typically
in the same format as e.g. bindkey definitions.

I have no particular opinion about this but will not myself be
implementing any changes in this regard.

References:
- \M-^C vs \203 vs \x83 as visual representations of bytes
  - From: Stephane Chazelas
- Re: \M-^C vs \203 vs \x83 as visual representations of bytes
  - From: Mark J. Reed

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author