Re: [Nano-devel] [PATCH 1/2 V3] cutting: when ^K does not actually cut anything, do not add an undo item

[Benno Schulenberg]

Op 02-01-19 om 21:22 schreef David Ramsey:
> Benno Schulenberg:
>> If that is what filebot is for, then I am all for getting rid of it.
>> It will save us the trouble of keeping the thing in sync.
> 
> You'll effectively replace it with the trouble of having to loop to the
> end of the buffer in a lot of spots where the last line of the file
> needs to be quickly accessible.

That's what I meant: filebot has other purposes.  If its purpose were
to check for end-of-buffer, it wouldn't exist.

(It does exist and thus can be used for checking for end-of-buffer too,
but it doesn't need to be: do_next_word() doesn't do it either.)

>> If the user has truly forgotten that the mark is on, then cutting
>> *nothing* when the user types ^K is majorly unexpected.
> 
> Trying to guess what the user wants when it comes to destructive things
> like cutting is a bad idea; cutting nothing is the least destructive
> option.  Or at least have some other visual indicator that the mark is
> on.

No.  We'll just redefine what setting the mark means: it means the
/intent/ to select text.  But as long as there is no actual selection,
there *is* no selection and nano will not behave as if there were:
nano will not act on "empty" selections, it will ignore them.

>> We're leaving Pico behind.  Or rather: we've left Pico behind long
>> ago. We took from Pico what was good, and tried to improve where it
>> wasn't.
> 
> And how far do we go with that?  Nano is still called "an enhanced free
> Pico clone".

That's easy to rename.  "Nano is an editor inspired by Pico."

Benno

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature