[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev [lynx2.8.1rel.2] lineedit bug fix (and enhancement)

From: Dick Wesseling
Subject: Re: lynx-dev [lynx2.8.1rel.2] lineedit bug fix (and enhancement)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:36:16 +0100

address@hidden said:

> The 2.8.1 release finally prompted me to change the (annoying to me)
> behavior of the ^B and ^F line editor bindings to provide emacs/tcsh
> like behavior (cursor left/right), instead of "word" deletes.
> In the process, I found what seems to be a bug in the ^R (LYE_DELN)
> function, which is described as "delete next character", but was in
> fact performing identically to ^D (LYE_DELC) "delete current
> character".

There is no bug, it is all a matter of nomenclature.

When I made this description I had an image of a graphical I beam 
cursor in mind, a cursor which is never ON a character, but always
BETWEEN two characters. Hence the names LYE_DELP and LYE_DELN.

The third character delete function - LYE_DELC - was added later by 
Fote. Since you're new to the list and I'm not sure whether the archive 
goes back to sep 27 1995 I'll quote part of his message here:

address@hidden said:
>  I added an LYE_DELC, to go with LYE_DELP and LYE_DELN, so you can
> map commands for deleting a character to the left, under, or to the
> right of the cursor.

I never bothered to ask what he meant by "under". Obviously there is no 
"under" in the i-beam way of thinking.

address@hidden said:
> but was in fact performing identically to ^D (LYE_DELC) "delete
> current character

So that is why a never understood Fote's LYE_DELC...

Anyway, DELP and DELN do what I want them to do and if you are going to change 
their behaviour then you're breaking my keybinding and probably other people's 
bindings also.

It is better to just add a new lineedit opcode LYE_DELCND (delete character 
next door, cannot be misunderstood) and to add that to the EditBinding table  
than to change the semantics of existing functions.

While you're at it; if the code that implements Fote's DELC really does the 
same thing as the original DELN, then you can get rid of the duplicate code and 
change LyStrings.h to define DELN and DELC as the same value.

>          DefaultEditBinding,     /* You can't please everyone, so
> you ... DW */ + BetterEditBinding,      /* No, you certainly can't
> ... /ked 10/27/98*/


Actually, that is Fotes binding and my comment. I'm using BestBinding.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]