On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:02:27PM +, José Alberto Orejuela García wrote:
> > Yes - if you filter for ! in e.g. the setting value completion or whatever,
> > you
> > wouldn't expect qutebrowser to filter for %21.
>
> But the point is that it doesn't matter as there won't be strings like that
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:57:44AM -0400, Ryan Roden-Corrent wrote:
> > Taking into account substitutions in urls. For example, if I want to
> > find an url that contained a bang, I cannot find it using ":open !"
> > because that won't give any result as ! was changed to %21 in the url.
>
> This
Hello,
I'm a bit late (I had a lot of work last week), but here is my answer. =)
> I think Florian addressed this one -- up/down are used for history, leaving
> just
> tab/shift-tab for completion selection. I think this mirrors what people are
> used to from a shell.
>
> I find I use tab for
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:39:38PM +, José Alberto Orejuela García wrote:
> > That being said, I had no idea how many people use arrow keys to navigate
> > through the completion, and I changed it because a lot of people expected
> > up/down to go through the history.
>
> Yes, I also
Hello,
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:40:08 PM CEST Florian Bruhin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +, José Alberto Orejuela García wrote:
> > I was very excited about qutebrowser 1.0 and now (hype is not good ever) I
> > feel disappointed about some things, mostly when
Hi Jose,
i agree on the completion problem. It now seems to search not only in
the command names but also the description of the commands. Thats why
'search' comes first in your completion example. Thats not a huge
problem but I would like the behaviour of first showing all result where
the
Hi,
I was very excited about qutebrowser 1.0 and now (hype is not good ever) I feel
disappointed about some things, mostly when interacting with commands.
I don't exactly know which ones are all the differences, but I find the
completion (url based on history or general command completion)
