Command Line Creature Comforts
When a command line utility writes to stdout, sometimes that output is going to be piped to another utility or redirected to a file. And sometimes the input it reads from stdin will be coming from a file or another utility. But other times that output is just going to be displayed by a terminal emulator, and that input is going to be provided by a human typing.
Command line utilities can make allowances for the human input and output
use cases: here’s
ls using multiple columns (and on your machine likely
color, too) when its output isn’t being piped anywhere.
$ ls > tmp.txt; cat tmp.txt diagram.png image.jpg notes.txt $ ls diagram.png image.jpg notes.txt
This article skims over precisely how terminals can be made to act differently in this case; if you’re not familiar and uncomfortable with handwaving, you might duck out and have fun with some of these resources first:
Some interpreter commands like
node switch completely to interactive mode to
provide a REPL when run without a target, and even use
readline to provide autocompletion,
completing the rest of a word if only one possible completion exists and listing all
possible completions if more than one does.
Two approaches to history
Unfortunately, with limited terminal emulator real estate these suggestions can quickly move previous commands off the screen. This problem is somewhat mitigated by the scrollback buffer history of our teletype-inspired terminal emulators: although we no longer automatically end up with a paper history of our consultations with the console, an analogous virtual readout is only a mousewheel flick away. But it’s not ideal be lowering the signal to noise ratio of this scrollback buffer history by polluting it with completions.
Since the advent of video terminal, we’ve been free of the typewriter-tyranny of
only moving right (normal characters), down (
\n), and to the left
\b). Now, ANSI escape sequences allow us to write to any portion of
the traditionally 80-column-by-24-row video terminal. But this freedom
does not extend to the scrollback buffer; once a row is pushed off the
screen, it becomes indelible.
This history feature only makes sense in the line-oriented paradigm, so most so-called fullscreen programs which use the terminal emulator as a canvas rather than a souped-up typewriter use the “alternate screen” where history is not preserved and writing a newline on the bottom row does not cause a frame shift.
As such, exiting
emacs does not add a full terminal height of
text editor detritus from a session with one of those text editors. Their interaction
takes place on the alternate screen. In
vim, output from
commands (which do fit the line-oriented paradigm) will be added to the regular,
history-preserving terminal session.
The two features of scrollback buffer and rich terminal interaction are therefore at odds, and this conflict comes to a point in command line interfaces: interactive call-and-response sessions like interactive shells, interactive interpreters, or any other program with its own prompt whose execution encompasses several inputs and corresponding outputs. That barrage of information provided by text editors is useful, but, like autocompletion suggestions, would further pollute our history. The fullscreen app approach eschews the scrollback buffer entirely, not contributing to it but not mucking it up, either. By contrast, interactive line-oriented sessions typically do store their history.
A hybrid approach is to use the line-oriented method on the alternate screen, simulating a regular history-preserving session by scrolling content offscreen to make room for additional lines – and then dumping all of this history when the program finishes to preserve it.
Since the session has been added to the regular terminal it will end up in the scrollback buffer and be viewable later, but previous history cannot be viewed by scrolling up while that program is running.
Not mucking up history
The basic rule of etiquette for history-recording command line programs – that is, programs which do not use the alternate screen – is to not alter previously run commands or their output.
Writing ordinary text makes following this pretty easy; again, the tyranny of the typewriter allows only writing characters, moving to the next line, and possibly editing the current one with carriage return and ASCII character 8, backspace. It’s hard to mess up history like this.
The often-used readline library adds hotkeys for jumping around the current line by reading input into userspace character-by-character (instead of waiting for a newline) and repainting that line of text to the terminal immediately.
This task is more difficult than it appears because a single logical line might be split between multiple rows. Since capabilities for redrawing the terminal are based on display rows and columns instead of logical lines, the readline library has a tricky job to do when an edit – say, the deletion of word with ctrl-w – affects other rows before and after. It must use what it knows about the current width of the terminal to hop the cursor around to rebuild the current line. In fact, it’s pretty easy to confuse readline: start a program that uses it (like Python), drag the terminal window smaller, then type a long line of text. I’ve found libedit, usually used in place of readline of OSX, more difficult to confuse; regardless, it’s a difficult task.
I’ll push out the difficulties introduced by resizing terminal windows and reflowing onscreen history to another article. Let’s ignore them for now.
Tools like fish and utop take a sensible approach: although it’s rude to alter history above the current line, rows under the current line can be used as temporary space for any transitory information the user might want to be hit with.
Multiline editing can even be implemented in this way. Here’s IPython 5, which now uses the excellent Python Prompt Toolkit library:
It’s very important that these autocompletion menus appear below the current line of text. Terminal emulators provide no way to read the contents of the screen. Because we can’t read that content to save it, if we wrote over it, the best cleanup we could do afterwards would be to erase the completion with spaces, leaving a gap.
Although we have no way to know what content appears above the top row of the current line in the first prompt of a command line interface, by the second prompt at least some of that content is knowable: it was put there by this very same program, one while loop iteration ago!
In part 2 we’ll look at using knowledge of what had just been written modify previous rows and see how terminal window size changes, history rewrapping, and differences in terminal emulator behavior make this difficult. Here’s a teaser: