I've now got ctrl-click multiple selections working, (I can make multiple 
selections and type into all of them at once) on my [debugging 
branch](https://github.com/Ryan1729/geany/tree/ryan1729debug). Note that that 
branch  simply deletes the old ctrl-click functionality, (and has a bunch of 
printouts besides), so it' is not suitable to add to the main codebase, but it 
works as a proof of concept. 

So the question now seems to be how should the settings for ctrl-clicking be 
handled? The natural thing to do right now seems (to me) to be a set of radio 
buttons, (and a corresponding enum) that allows selecting between the old 
functionality (goto-tag and find-matching-brace), adding a selection, and not 
doing anything on ctrl-click at all. However, that old discussion thread 
mentioned the idea of mouse bindings, (so the user could bind arbitrary actions 
to mouse inputs,) which seems like a reasonable idea. If that's ever going to 
happen, then we should probably think about that when deciding how this setting 
works. If we go with my enum proposal then later mouse bindings get added, then 
either user's configuration files break or we have one of two undesirable 
situations : this enum overrides the keybindings, meaning the user might set 
mouse bindings and not understand why they need to set the enum to "None" or an 
additional setting of "Allow keybinding", or the other situation where the 
keybindings override the enum and if a user binds something to ctrl-shift-click 
and is surprised that ctrl-click stops doing what they expect.

Then again, would not having either setting override each other be best? If a 
user is surprised that ctrl-clicking adds a selection, in addition to whatever 
they set it to do, then hopefully that would prompt them to look in the 
settings to turn that off? Maybe someone else has a better idea that avoids 
even that problem?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/1141#issuecomment-345379372

Reply via email to