Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-11-03 Thread Mark Wedel
On 11/ 2/13 08:14 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: On 11/02/2013 11:04, Arvid Brodin wrote: I noticed the gtk client code is split between the folders common/ and gtk-v2/. I found references to something called the x11 client in the code, and I assumed that that was an old client that had since been

Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-11-02 Thread Arvid Brodin
On 2013-11-01 04:54, David Hurst wrote: I'd be of the view, if it isn't reducing a functionality but re-implementing it in a more useful way (be it more flexible, faster, or any other good reason) then it has my support. This could better be described as removing an arcane feature to simplify

Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-11-02 Thread Kevin Zheng
On 11/02/2013 11:04, Arvid Brodin wrote: That's something of a tall order. :) It's a lot of work learning how _one_ client works; learning two clients and then trying do do only changes that benefit both (and doesn't break any) of them could be very limiting. (Is the Windows compatibility

Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-10-31 Thread Kevin Zheng
Hi there, On 10/30/2013 20:06, Arvid Brodin wrote: As a new player, I found this to be a usability problem. Everyone knows what the Control key is, but what's the Run key? I think the reason Shift and Ctrl were called Fire and Run is that it is possible to rebind them - i.e. if you want some

Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-10-31 Thread David Hurst
I'd be of the view, if it isn't reducing a functionality but re-implementing it in a more useful way (be it more flexible, faster, or any other good reason) then it has my support. Perhaps another perspective is that if you change it, and things don't work out, it is a lot easier to backtrack and

Re: [crossfire] [RFC 2/3] Misc keybinding fixes and changes

2013-10-30 Thread Arvid Brodin
On 2013-10-31 00:34, Kevin Zheng wrote: Due to a minor change (addition of braces in a 'for' loop) in the previous patch (RFC 1/3), the original patch no longer applies cleanly. I've attached a resolved patch that should apply correctly now. Please tell me if something doesn't look right.