Re: [dev] Scrollback utility for use with st

From: Silvan Jegen <s.jegen_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 16:52:15 +0200

Hi

"Greg Reagle" <greg.reagle_AT_umbc.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020, at 06:57, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 12:11:09 +0200
> > Georg Lehner <jorge_AT_at.anteris.net> wrote:
> > > A question: why is the scrollback-patch not included in `st` already
> >
> > exactly my point. I see no reason why there can't at least be a
> > scrollback, which defaults to 0 in config.h.
> > Wouldn't this make all sides happy?
>
> Now I am thinking that it would be good idea to have a scrollback
> program and/or library that is used by st, xterm, dvtm, tmux, splitvt,
> mtm. For those programs that do not come with a scrollback feature,
> this would add the scrollback feature with very little (scrollback
> library) or no (scrollback program) extra code. For some of those
> programs that already have the feature, stripping out their custom
> code would reduce complexity. If all of these programs used the same
> program/library, there would be a consistent user interface which
> would be really nice.
>
> I think that some people consider a scrollback buffer in st to be
> feature bloat, so they keep it out of the main line and force it into
> an extra patch. The attitude is: If you want scrollback, use dvtm or
> tmux, or the scrollback patch, or do things in a Plan 9 sort of way
> (which I am not too familiar with).

Yes, the scrollback buffer can be implemented by a different tool like
tmux for example. That's why this functionality is not implemented in
st from what I understand. Separation of concerns and so on.

I can see why it is inconvenient but personally I have never applied
the scrollback patch to st and I have been using st for years. If the
patch would be added to mainline, I would definitely use the scrollback
buffer, though it would also increase the SLOC count for functionality
that arguably should be handled elsewhere.


Cheers,

Silvan


> When I first learned of st, this attitude really baffled me. How
> could a scrollback feature in a terminal be considered extraneous?
> Now that I've learned more about suckless and about how Plan 9 works
> (though Plan 9 still confuses me, I haven't completely wrapped my head
> around it), it doesn't seem so crazy. But still, I always use the
> scrollback patch for st.
Received on Sun Apr 05 2020 - 16:52:15 CEST