Hello Daniel,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 03:12:15PM +0100, Daniel Carl wrote:
> These are axamples of those commands that exists only in normal mode. To map
> them you could use something like (<C-O> and <C-I> are vimb normal mode
> commands and are known from vim).
>
> nmap b <C-O>
> nmap B <C-I>
>
Thanks for that! But why I can not find CTRL-O and CTRL-I in vimb(1) man
page?... It seems that <C-O> and <C-I> is equivalent to UP and DOWN, isn't
it? (from vimb(1)):
[...]
[N]UP Go back N steps in the browser history.
[N]DOWN Go forward N steps in the browser history.
[...]
I don't know what they are the vim counterpart because I am a nvi user.
Maybe it should be documented in vimb(1) and/or it should be added a "SEE
ALSO" section that points to vim(1).
IMO it would be better to have all them documented into vimb(1) (I can read
them in src/normal.c in normal_navigate()).
> The 'normal' command is an ex-command and should be written with ':' in the
> binding.
>
> nmap :normal! ...
>
> But this isn't necessary, the 'normal' commands is only a way to call normal
> mode commands from none normal modes. For example if multiple ex-commands are
> chained together ':set scripts=on|normal! r'.
>
> I'm not sure what the intension of 'nmap b normal! <Up>' is, but if you want
> to scroll the page up, 'nmap b k' should to the thing. The <Up> and <Down>
> keys are handled from gtk or webkit and not from vimb. That means if you bind
> those keys to 'b' and press key, vimb translates the 'b' into <Up> and writes
> the <Up> into the internal key queue. But vimb does not know what <Up> means.
> And at the moment there exists no logic to convert such unknown commands into
> fake key event that are fired to force webkit or gtk to some actions. And I'm
> not sure if this is a useful thing to have or if this will be possible to
> implement in a clean way.
Thank you for the clarification. The intention was using <Up> and <Down> like
<C-O> and <C-I> in order to imitate the "back" and "forward" ex-ex commands.
:)
Personally I think that convert the commands into fake key event are not very
useful.
> > The 0.10.0 configuration file is readable while the 2.0 is not, IMO.
> Do you mean readable for humans or can vimb not read it? Yes, the keybindings
> aren't so verbose like before, but the vim users should be familiar with the
> most of the normal mode commands, all other commands (that vim does not know
> nor need) are similar to those used by pentadactyl.
I meant for humans.
> > I prefer to have all commands that was present in the previous releases,
> > they make vimb usage simpler (...and if, for example, I forget the
> > keybinding I can always type ":back" or whatever!...).
> Hm, this could be a useful feature. I've seem it for pentadactyl that you can
> alias ex-commands and vim has also a way to define new ex-commands. But I've
> never seen the need for such a feature. I think you are faster if you learn
> the most common normal mode commands instead of waiting that the command alias
> feature will be implemented:)
Maybe yes, but at the moment I will try to learn the normal mode commands. ;)
Thank you very much for your quick reply!
Now I'm able to feel comfortable with vimb again!
Keep up the good work,
L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing
conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
vimb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vimb-users
