Re: Possible new feature: Use insert to try to insert file on current buffer

[Benno Schulenberg]

Op 14-05-2020 om 21:17 schreef Marco Diego Aurélio Mesquita:
> I have some macros

What do you mean with "macros"?  String binds?  Because nano can
have at most one macro defined.

> that use external tools to add text to the current
> buffer on the current cursor position. Also, it is very common for me
> to open files on new buffers. Once I open a file on a new buffer, my
> macros suddenly stop working because the output of the external tool
> will go to a new buffer instead of the current one.

Yes, it would have been better if M-F (and M-N) were one-time toggles,
having effect only during the current invocation of ^R and forgotten
the next time -- just like M-B is in the ^W menu.  Maybe they should
be made to work that way?

> Considering the pressing Ins is already redundant because it has the
> same effect of pressing ^R, I wrote the attached small patch.

Are you using this patch yourself?  If yes, how long have you been
running with it?

> With it
> applied, when Ins is pressed, it will try to insert on the current
> buffer independent of the current state of the MULTIBUFFER flag.
> Changes when in this "mode" are also ignored so that it will not mess
> with the value of the MULTIBUFFER flag.
> 
> Please consider applying it.
> 
> 
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 15:03:34 -0300
> Subject: [PATCH] Ignore ISSET(MULTIBUFFER) when "Ins" is pressed.

The style of nano's headerlines in git is: a word followed by a colon,
followed by a sentence without a period.  The sentence tries to speak
the language of the user, not of the code.  How can I take your patches
seriously if even after twenty patches you still don't know how to
format a subject line of patch?

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Where is the commit message?  How could I even consider applying it?


> +/* Insert a file but trying to do it in the current buffer first. */

"trying"?

> +void do_inserthere_void(void)

The name is not good.  I tend to read it as "do inser there",
and the "_void" is superfluous.

> +     bool was_set = ISSET(MULTIBUFFER);

In general: a blank line after declarations.

> +     if (was_set)
> +             TOGGLE(MULTIBUFFER);

Instead of TOGGLE() I would use UNSET().
Then it's clearer what the effect is.

> +     if (ISSET(MULTIBUFFER) != was_set)
> +             TOGGLE(MULTIBUFFER);

Your logic is strange.  Why not simply:

  if (was_set)
        SET(MULTIBUFFER);

If the patch were to be applied, it would also need a
bindable function, and documentation.  But currently
I'm not inclined to apply it.

Benno

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature