On 26/03/2009, at 10:34 PM, Martin Kühl wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 00:50, Luke Daley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 26/03/2009, at 4:45 AM, Martin Kühl wrote: >> >>> • Passing the :input and :interactive_input options through to the >>> underlying TM::Process.run invokation. >>> The Maude bundle uses this to script the maude interpreter from the >>> TextMate command, usually to wrap a command around the current >>> word/selection. >>> • Deactivating the interactive input library if the variable >>> TM_INTERACTIVE_INPUT_DISABLED is defined. >>> Allan requested this on IRC. >> >> What was the reason for needing two ways to disable interactive >> input? > > As I understand it, one way works on the command level, where it > doesn’t make sense for some commands to receive interactive input, > while the other works on the project (or global) level, where > unfortunate circumstances make the interactive input library behave > badly (this should, to quote Allan, "solve that/those python > problems"). > > If you mean that commands could set TM_INTERACTIVE_INPUT_DISABLED > instead of :interactive_input to disable it, I guess that’s more of a > stylistic question, but think that it should be consistent for > Executor.run and Process.run. > > Does that answer your question?
Yes, fair enough. What are the problems with it though? Are they bugs in tm_interactive_input.dylib? _______________________________________________ textmate-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate-dev
