I applied this to OpenBSD now; it'll be in SF later sometime.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 03:21:52PM +, Ross Hadden wrote:
> Keith Amling palantir.com> writes:
>
> >
> > > > > Or are you thinking of creating the table after running the set
> command?
> > > > > This shouldn't work - you should
Would you mind making a merge request for it? I could, but it wouldn't
really be right to make a merge request with someone else's hard work!
Your name should be on this.
Thanks,
~Ross
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:30 PM Nicholas Marriott <
nicholas.marri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the latest d
It needs a bit of love again after the mouse keys stuff that just went
in so it may not be for a while...
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:45:38PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> We don't need a merge request, I'll commit it when I'm happy with it. Thanks
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 06:49:30PM +0
We don't need a merge request, I'll commit it when I'm happy with it. Thanks
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 06:49:30PM +, Ross Hadden wrote:
>Would you mind making a merge request for it?** I could, but it wouldn't
>really be right to make a merge request with someone else's hard work!**
>
Here's the latest diff.
It actually seems to work fine, although I haven't done a lot of testing.
IIRC I wasn't wild about the cmd-list-keys.c and cmd-bind-key.c changes;
certainly lsk -T should error on an unknown table, same as bind -T. I
think the manpage bits could do with some improvement to
riginal message
From: Ross Hadden
Date:13/04/2015 16:21 (GMT+00:00)
To: tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow custom key tables for e.g. multiple
keystroke bindings.
Keith Amling palantir.com> writes:
>
> > > > Or are you thi
Keith Amling palantir.com> writes:
>
> > > > Or are you thinking of creating the table after running the set
command?
> > > > This shouldn't work - you shouldn't be able to set a client to a
> > > > nonexistent table.
> > >
> > > I guess I don't super care what happens since I won't personally
> > > Or are you thinking of creating the table after running the set command?
> > > This shouldn't work - you shouldn't be able to set a client to a
> > > nonexistent table.
> >
> > I guess I don't super care what happens since I won't personally be
> > writing any switch-client -T into an empty
Uh, as you wish although I'm not sure I understand the subtext. Just
for my curiosity is it just that you prefer "for (;;)"?
Keith
Thus spake Nicholas Marriott, at Tue, May 13, 2014 at 02:04:42AM +0100:
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 02:04:42 +0100
> From: Nicholas Marriott
> To: Ke
> > Well, I agree it needs to be destroyed eventually but the issue is that
> > if a user thinks of the client as being set to [read from] a keytable
> > with a name then they will likely think binding a key into a keytable of
> > that name will be the same table even if the bind happens after the
The various things I didn't quote are all straight-forward and will be
my pleasure to fix.
> I don't think it'd be that much compatibility code.
>
> We could just maintain a flag for the "option-set" prefix in the root
> table, and that can be used for prefix/send-prefix. The root table can
> nev
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:42:05PM -0700, Keith Amling wrote:
> > > Well, I agree it needs to be destroyed eventually but the issue is that
> > > if a user thinks of the client as being set to [read from] a keytable
> > > with a name then they will likely think binding a key into a keytable of
> >
Hi
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:41:07PM -0700, Keith Amling wrote:
> The various things I didn't quote are all straight-forward and will be
> my pleasure to fix.
>
> > I don't think it'd be that much compatibility code.
> >
> > We could just maintain a flag for the "option-set" prefix in the root
ted, things like "bind x bind x lsk"
would cause a use-after-free.
>
> > - You will save me a little time if you use "for (;;)" instead of "while
> > (1)".
>
> Uh, as you wish although I'm not sure I understand the subtext. Just
> for my
Thanks - I think this is the right idea, but not quite there.
There should be no need for a prefix key anymore. Instead, the default
root table should have a binding for C-b to change the key table.
That way the prefix table is not special, the only special table is the
root table.
(Although we'
Sorry if this isn't formatted as expected, I'm not at all familiar with
the operation of git's e-mail tools.
Keith
---
Makefile.am| 1 +
cmd-bind-key.c | 52 -
cmd-list-keys.c| 80 +++---
cmd-set-keytable.c | 44 +++
16 matches
Mail list logo
