On Wed 2016.11.30 at 15:20 +0100, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> Quoth Okan Demirmen on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
> > Hopefully these new action names make more sense; they will allow adding
> > some
> > more functions that will more closely match what they do.
>
> The new action names are definitely better. I'm a bit divided
> about breaking compatibility, but it's probably worth doing it
> once.
Yeah, this is that binding on un-matched function names implies exec 'command',
so no one would ever know, thus these bind keyword changes forces that issue.
I suppose a future change could change the implicit 'command' binding to
something more explicit, such as "bind-key M-m command /usr/local/bin/magic"
While that requires a bit of surgery, I could make that a part of this overall
change?
> > diff -u -p -r1.224 conf.c
> > @@ -510,6 +512,10 @@ conf_bind_key(struct conf *c, const char
> > const char *key;
> > unsigned int i;
> >
> > + if (strcmp(bind, "*") == 0) {
> > + conf_unbind_key_all(c);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> I'd rather move this down under "if (cmd == NULL)", to avoid
> "bind-key * something". (And the same about bind-mouse.)
Never thought anyone would do that, but I guess something like:
if (cmd == NULL) {
free(kb);
if (strcmp(bind, "*") == 0)
conf_unbind_key_all(c);
goto out;
}
Likewise for bind-mouse.
> > diff -u -p -r1.63 cwmrc.5
> > -.It group[n]
> > +.It group-toggle-[n]
> > Toggle visibility of group n, where n is 1-9.
> > -.It grouponly[n]
> > +.It group-only-[n]
> > Like
> > -.Ar group[n]
> > +.Ar group-toggle-[n]
> > but also hides the other groups.
>
> This is not strictly correct: group-only-[n] never hides group n.
> Perhaps something like this would be better:
>
> Show group n, where n is 1-9, and hide the other groups.
True; the current wording is that way, and I didn't change it. However,
your point is taken, maybe even to the point of using "group-showonly-[n]"
might be better?
