ratpoison-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[RP] A new `symbind' command


From: Gergely Nagy
Subject: [RP] A new `symbind' command
Date: Wed Sep 12 09:41:02 2001
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.20i

Greetings!

Today, while playing with ratpoison, I accidentally hit C-t C-c, and
to my surprise, I saw an xterm.. I was puzzled for a few seconds,
since I bound C-t c to aterm in my ratpoisonrc. Then, I realised I
actually hit C-c instead of c. Ouch.

So I wondered if I could find an easy way to make C-t C-c behave the
same as C-t c, even after changing C-t c, but not C-t C-c. That was
the original intent behind binding the same command to two different
keys, wasn't it?

So, I came up with the attached simple patch, that adds a symbind
<key> command. How does it work? It receives <key> as the paramater,
looks up the command bound to it, and executes that. You can think of
it as a symlink to another keybinding.

Then, I thought it doesn't look that good in C-t ?, so I wrote another
patch, that alters cmd_help to show the target command of a symbind,
making it a mixture between a hardlink and a symlink. The only problem
with my approach is that it isn't recursive: if A is bound to symbind
B, and B is symbind C, then C-t ? will display `symbind C'. I could
easily write a symbind resolver if needed, but I think it's just a
little overkill.

A third patch is attached too, which adds the necessary documentation
stuff.

Now that I rethink the name, `symbind' might not be the best, as it is
easily confused with `bind'.. maybe `keylink' or `link', or something
like that would be more appropriate. I leave this to your imagination
:)

Ideas, flames, praises and flowers welcomed ;)

Cheers,
-- 
Gergely Nagy \ mhp/|8]

Attachment: ratpoison-symbind.diff
Description: Text document

Attachment: ratpoison-symbind-help.diff
Description: Text document

Attachment: ratpoison-symbind-docs.diff
Description: Text document

Attachment: pgpbnOW4mXszw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

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