[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Ideas for the future

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: Ideas for the future
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:23:19 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, le Mon 05 Mar 2012 02:40:57 +0100, a 
écrit :
> On 05.03.2012 02:35, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, le Mon 05 Mar 2012 02:30:11 +0100, a 
> >écrit :
> >>>6) menuentry --enabled 0|1
> >>>It's a good practice to show menuentries even if they are not applicable
> >>>in different situations (that's common for all major menu systems). If a
> >>>menu entry is disabled, it is shown but it is not operable. E.g. one
> >>>might have a general grub config file which supports booting a bunch of
> >>>ISO images. When an ISO image is not found and instead of not showing a
> >>>menuentry for that, those menuentry could be shown as disabled.
> >>This seems like just cluttering the view. Remember that in some applications
> >>(e.g. braille) menu has to be very concise. We support even the tiny (40x1)
> >>terminal geometries.
> >Actually, 40x1 is relatively large for a braille device. A lot of them
> >are 20x1.
> 20x1 works as well. The bare minimum is 5x1 (we need 4 positions to indicate
> that there are more entries or more chars in the entry).
> For less than 20x1  4 special positions become wasteful and the code should
> probably check those explicitly.
> Is less than 20x1 common?



reply via email to

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