On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> > Hello Robert, > > [...] I think we should try to make this REALLY simple. We don't really >> want to have everybody have to change their PROMPT1 and PROMPT2 strings for >> this one feature. >> > > Ok. I think that we agree that the stack was too much details. > > How about just introducing a new value for %R? >> > > Yes. That is indeed one of the idea being discussed. > > [...] , or @ if commands are currently being ignored because of the result >> of an \if test. >> > ,-or-@ has one advantage over t/f/z: we cannot infer the 'z' state purely from pset.active_state, and the if-stack itself is sequestered in scan_state, which is not visible to the get_prompt() function. I suppose if somebody wanted it, a separate slash command that does a verbose printing of the current if-stack would be nice, but mostly just to explain to people how the if-stack works. > If I can find some simple mnemonic for "," vs "@" for being executed vs > ignored, I could live with that, but nothing obvious comes to my mind. > @in't gonna execute it? I'm here all week, try the veal. To sum up your points: just update %R (ok), keep it simple/short (ok... but > how simple [2 vs 3 states] and short [1 or 2 chars]), and no real need to > be too nice with the user beyond the vital (ok, that significantly > simplifies things). I'd be fine with either of these on aesthetic grounds. On technical grounds, 'z' is harder to show.