Re: [dev] [st] RFC halt function

From: Edgaras <devoas_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:45:04 +0300

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Nick wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:15:13AM +0800, Patrick Haller wrote:
> > On 2013-04-25 20:05, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > > while trying to copy some stuff from iotop I came to the idea of having
> > > some ??halt?? function in st. This is like the ??halt?? in 9term, where ev???
> > > erything will stand still but the terminal is working on the output in
> > > the background.
> >
> > Why not let tmux or screen handle that? Does st really need an
> > (xon/xoff)++ feature?
>
> I agree, we should decide whether features like scrollback, "halt",
> or reflowing belong in st or not. I personally like the idea of
> having them, as they're the only features I need of screen, and I
> would be keen to generally not need to run it but rely on my terminal
> for those functions.
>
> But I know in the past scrollback has been rejected as "out of
> scope" for st, with the recommendation of using screen or tmux.
>
I'm for keeping feature sets as small as possible and using combinations of programs when feasable (i.e. no insane performance impact). Frankly I'm now I'm fairly interested why would people need scroll back. I do not use tmux or screen. Well I use dvtm but I dont use scroll back functionality there. I find that "less" is mostly sufficient for my needs. And apps like etitors, for example vim, provide their own scroll function. And from what I hear scroll back sounds to be pain to implement.

As for halt, well I think it does not sound exectly like xon/xoff (correct me if I'm wrong). But again, I wonder what usese does it have. Though to be fair this sounds like quite simple thing to implement. So maybe this is better idea than scroll. Though that is provided that it indeed does differ from xon/xoff.
Received on Fri Apr 26 2013 - 12:45:04 CEST