Re: [dev] [patch] add Control-G and Control-D to dmenu

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Connor Lane Smith <cls_AT_lubutu.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 8 August 2010 09:22, Uriel <uriel_AT_berlinblue.org> wrote:
>> Both are emacsisms as far as I can tell, and of little use (specialy
>> given ^C already aborts).
>
> ^D isn't an emacsism insofar as using it in bash when not at the end
> of the line works the same way. That said, I'm aware bash is a
> monster. However:

Just because some other retarded piece of GNU/crap implements it
doesn't make it any less an emacsism.

>
> On 8 August 2010 11:54, Uriel <uriel_AT_berlinblue.org> wrote:
>> Indeed, ^D meaning anything other than EOF is an abomination.
>
> I'm not prepared to limit myself to relics for the sake of it. dmenu
> has no files of which to reach the end, so EOF is simply meaningless.
> If we restricted ^D to solely EOF then it would be a dead key. On the
> other hand, dmenu has a cursor, which 1970 teletypes did not have, and
> so requires keybinds for its control. If Bell Labs UNIX had had a
> terminal cursor I'm sure they would have provided the keybinds
> necessary to use it. I don't believe pragmatism is abominable.

This is a totally retarded argument, Plan 9 terminals do have a
cursor, and certainly don't implement every retarded stupid keybinding
imaginable, specially not ones that conflict with one of the most
generally accepted and used keybindings. Also ^D makes perfect sense
in dmenu, it means *end of input*, it works when you type cat(1) in
any *nix terminal, even totally retarded ones like xterm.

To do anything else with ^D is not pragmatism, it is totally retarded
GNU/idiocy.

uriel

> Thanks,
> cls
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 09 2010 - 14:35:46 CEST