Re: can ups be operated from the keyboard?

From: John Utz (
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 09:35:56 BST

  • Next message: Russell Browne: "Re: can ups be operated from the keyboard?"
    i am seeing a consensus building for 3keystrokes=1Step and that was *way*
    not where i was going! :-)
    ahh, the joys of a community development process!
    so, to more accurately present my perspective ( which, to be sure, is just
    one person`s perspective ). I wanted to see 1Keystroke=1Step and
    3Keystrokes=3Steps ( or 3Nexts, whatever )
    i think that the typeline interface should be left alone to do what it
    already knows how to do.
    my thinking is that keyboard handling would become context sensitive and
    that either moving the mouse over a given window would change the context
    to an appropriate one for that window.or a Ctrl-Tab would shift you thru
    the contexts.
    that was my dim vision, fwiw....
    On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Russell Browne wrote:
    > Of the various proposals floated, a variation on the typing
    > line shortcuts, (%s, %n, etc.) seems most easy to implement.
    > I don't like using the function keys (F1, ...) or the keypad numbers
    > because they have no mnemonic value. If it were configurable
    > by X resources or the like, fine.  People can configure in any
    > way that works for them, but I'd rather the out of the box tool
    > had a fairly intuitive interface.
    > The Function keys are already used as an alternative to the custom
    > edit menu controled by the UPS_F*_STR environment variables, so
    > that if one has access through some sequence of key strokes you
    > can configure UPS to get the same feature through an Fx key.
    > As to the typing line shortcuts, I suggest using some initial character
    > other than '%', to avoid conflict with the existing %d and to
    > provide greater flexibility in extending the % short cuts.
    > I'm thinking of using '!', which has some mnemonic value as meaning
    > "escape", and doesn't conflict with anything (I think); with the following
    > rules:
    >    !s    step
    >    !n    next
    >    !r    run
    >    !u    up
    >    !d    down
    >    !c    continue
    >    !h    print these options to the output window
    > 	 Also for any other unrecognized commands
    >    All the !commands just look at the last character of the input string,
    >    and all stuff the typing line to contain just the first and last
    >    characters.  Thus, if you type
    >        !n<RET>
    >    it does a next, and repeats the next every time you type <RET>.
    >    Then if you type s<RET>, so that the typing line reads
    >        !ns
    >    it does a step and edits the typing line to read
    >        !s
    >    It would be desirable if the !commands removed the input from the
    >    edit history, so that the history buffer doesn't fill up with
    >    ! commands with more usefull stuff falling off the end.
    > Does this sound desirable, of just wierd?
    > Russ Browne
    > Applied MicroSystems
    John L. Utz III
    Idiocy is the Impulse Function in the Convolution of Life

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 21:58:21 GMT