On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > The fact that it's not backwards compatible is also (unfortunately) > problematic (Cf. Tony Mechelynck's questions about whether <C-]> and > <Esc> will be identical in the future). > > But that's a political question. (Personally, I tend toward "If > people/scripts rely on the broken behavior, too bad". But, if I > were the "benevolent dictator", there wouldn't be a 'compatible' > setting.)
Well, the politics are a largely-orthogonal part here, surely? Right now the code doesn't exist so nobody can choose to run it. If it were to exist, people could choose for themselves if they wanted to run it or not, and we'd be able to weigh the choices and compromises and decide what feels best. At the very least we'd be able ot offer to users "here, have a patch you can apply if you want this thing but we think it's dangerous". Right now we can't /even/ offer that. > How portable is libtermkey? I generally dislike the Vim party line > on backwards compatibility. But, being cross-platform is a good > thing. libtermkey will run anywhere with POSIX read() and poll() functions. But even then, I didn't necessarily suggest simply using libtermkey. I suggested that here is an existence-proof that detecting such keypresses is easily possible, the code is MIT'ed so feel free to steal it, or at least be inspired by ideas within it. It would be great if vim did just use libtermkey, at least on suitable platforms, but I won't complain (too much) if it doesn't and instead just reimplements the same abilities from it. I care a lot more about the end-result than the means used to obtain it. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans [email protected] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
