On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:07:21 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: > > Also, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't you have just said 'n' > > in the traditional interface for this case? > > Right, and then later a "revert". I was hoping to get two steps down to > one. Instead of record+revert, I could just do a "record".
Perhaps you want revert-upon-record. Sigh :-) Darcs really trains us to demand better. Well, here's a ticket opened for reverting upon record (split off from issue107) <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1734> I can recognise that my uber-interactive UI may be a silly idea, but I'm still not particularly happy about the encroachment of new features in the interactive UI (especially since here the temptation is to say "eh, what does a new keypress in the interactive interface cost?"). Of course, I could very well be mistaken. It's possible that adding just one more keypress really is harmless, or that reverting upon record really is *so* useful that it's worth they extra ability; or that this has such natural conceptual integrity anyway that's really free. Or maybe <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1713> is a way out. It asks for the interactive UI to distinguish between basic keypresses and advanced ones, is a good enough idea that having such a feature won't be so bad Shall I record this change? (1/1) [ynWesfvplxdaqjk], or ? for help Shall I record this change? (1/1) [yndq], or ? for more options [The cost of the above is that we hide functionality, so users may not even be aware they can, for example skip or select-all to entire files] Argh, need more wisdom! I don't know! Somebody code something! -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
