On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Jensen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Nicholas Marriott
> <nicholas.marri...@gmail.com (mailto:nicholas.marri...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > I will look at the diff tomorrow, but I don't see why we need an option.
> >
> > If you enable focusing in your terminal, you'll get it in tmux (if the
> > application has turned it on). That's what you want, right?
>From akracun:
> "The filter-focus option is to ensure backwards compatibility. There must be
> some user who actually wants these iTerm focus lost/gained messages to pass
> through, as they did before our patches, without having to discover a feature
> that we haven't even documented yet."
>
He also encouraged me to add back in some code to remember the state of panes
(whether or not they are focused) in order to prevent double focus
notifications in some situations (like break-pane):
> "You should keep the has_focus member variable to avoid double notification
> of focus gained messages. This was added specifically to address the
> cmd-break-pane issue where if the pane that has_focus is detached and the -d
> option is not given, it will receive another focus gained message."
>
My thought was that there may be commands we missed that changed focus and
therefore got the panes into incorrect states. I'm not sure which is a bigger
bug, not sending focus notifications when we should, or sending them
redundantly. For the break-pane situation, for example, if we know that that
does send redundant notifications, we can just fix that situation rather than
adding the state + check.
Aaron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
tmux-users mailing list
tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmux-users
