On 11 November 2010 13:37, Petr Sabata <psabata_AT_redhat.com> wrote:
> It might also be useful to allow the user to change the mode while dmenu
> is running.
As Dieter said, I can't really see a use case for this. There are
commands which can only logically take a single input (eg, dmenu_run)
and giving users the option to "switch mode" would just be lying. If a
command can take multiple lines of input you're probably better off
with either the filter or the multiselect patches, depending on the
situation.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:12:59PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
> Note that the user might not be able to know in which mode dmenu acts
> at run-time. The mode should be made visible then. (I don't say that
> this is the right way to go, though.)
On 11 November 2010 13:53, markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de> wrote:
> People may have different scripts launch dmenus. One will have to give
> them different colors to divide them apart.
I think this is a valid concern, since having an identical interface
acting differently in different circumstances might well confuse
people. However, changing colours aren't necessary: we have the '-p'
flag to change the prompt. dmenu behaving differently when the prompt
reads 'filter' or something, for example, makes more sense.
> If in filter mode, all entries on the right side would be highlighted,
> then I am pleased. The clear rule would be: Each highlighted entry
> gets printed. Think this is how is should be.
With Dan's filter mode every entry gets highlighted, but starting with
the one selected. How to indicate this behaviour isn't very obvious. I
do agree there should be some sort of indication like this, but I
don't think it's that easy. Right now all I can think of is changing
the prompt, like dwm does when its behaviour changes with the layout
symbols.
cls
Received on Thu Nov 11 2010 - 15:02:43 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 11 2010 - 15:12:03 CET