On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Martin Kühne <mysat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Britton Kerin <britton.ke...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Fix the patches. >> >> I have no idea how and I haven't found suckless people fun to work with >> > > Interesting how you switch a virtue (writing code) with laziness > (telling others where things go). > Tell me more about your management virtues.
The point is it's *much* easier for you to do it. You know how terminal programming works already, I don't. I *could* do it, but it would be extremely inefficient. >> Nonsense > > See above. You haven't tried to solve a problem, you only created one, > and really, it's yours. The problem is you imagine your weird factorization of an extremely common bit of terminal emulator functionality is somehow the right one. You say use dvtm. But dvtm is 4500 lines and I want nothing else from it. It's 95% redundant with dwm and I don't see the point at all. The st scrollback patches together are maybe 100 lines. The fact that dvtm is a different binary is irrelevant, your solution is bloated and inconvenient. It's your software, have it the way you want of course, but don't kid yourself that it's a generally good approach for most users. I guess probably 95% who try st for the first time are going to miss scrollback. The minimalist philosophy shouldn't mean omitting small and almost universally desirable features. btw, st sometime seems to eat input, and fail to output lines. You might want to try it without dvtm sometime in case that program is somehow masking a bug. Britton
