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'
15 matches
Mail list logo
