On 4/24/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yakov Lerner wrote:
>
> > Here is another try, less instrusive.
> > We make 'received_from_client' serve both cases, the clientserver and
> > the pushkeys() case, only with appropriate change in ifdefs.
> > Logic of input_available() is not intruded upon now, except for ifdefs.
>
> OK, it seems this version is harmless so long as you don't use the
> function, and probably works OK otherwise.
>
> Is pushkeys() really a good name? Something with "typeahead" would be
> better, but probably too long.
Typeahead() is only 1 letter long, length is not a problem.
Personally, I like "pushkeys" because "push" has double meaning here;
(1) "push" as add data to the buffer, and (2) "push" as we push keyboard keys.
So it's a little pun. So we have 4 candidates so far:
- typeahead
- pushkeys
- pushinput
- sendkeys
I also considered simkeys(), siminput(). Bram, the decision is yours.
I have this question: pushkeys(":\<Tab>") does not trigger competion.
I'd like pushkeys("...<Tab>") to trigger completion where real keyboard
input would. But I don't know how. Is it easy or difficult ?
Can you give me a hint, Bram, how to implement this ? I'd
make it optional dependent on the flags argument.
> The help needs a few links to this function, otherwise people won't find
> it.
>From which places ? Give me a hint which places
do you mean. From remote_send() maybe ? Or from map.txt ?
Yakov
