RFC: Tabs/workspaces #135

New Issue

sloum · 2020-03-04T17:45:12Z

sloum commented

2020-03-04 17:45:12 +00:00

Do we want to support tabs/buffers/workspaces/etc?

This would essentially entail adding multiple clients to a client slice as far as I can tell. We could likely max out the number of buffers. I am not sold on the utility of tabs/buffers/whatever for bombadillo... but it is an idea that is out there. The number keys on the keybaord could switch between a maximum of 10 buffers.

Do we want to support tabs/buffers/workspaces/etc? This would essentially entail adding multiple clients to a client slice as far as I can tell. We could likely max out the number of buffers. I am not sold on the utility of tabs/buffers/whatever for bombadillo... but it is an idea that is out there. The number keys on the keybaord could switch between a maximum of 10 buffers.

sloum added the

question

non-urgent

labels 2020-03-04 17:45:27 +00:00

sloum commented

2020-03-04 17:46:38 +00:00

Alternatively, user natpen suggests using the number keys for a different purpose: quick navigation to links. It would enable the first 9 links on a page to be available as quick links via the number keys.

Alternatively, user `natpen` suggests using the number keys for a different purpose: quick navigation to links. It would enable the first 9 links on a page to be available as quick links via the number keys.

rjt commented

2020-04-11 04:56:14 +00:00

I'd prefer number keys for links, too.

sloum commented

2020-04-11 18:24:43 +00:00

@rjt Thanks for posting! This has been up for a month and you and @natpen are the only ones to comment. As such, I am happy to give this a try. If I were to build that feature out and put it up on a branch, would you be willing to pull it and build it locally to give it a try and offer feedback? I'd like to have a few people try it before moving it off of an experimental branch, but I see no compelling reason not to give it a try. Particularly given the lack of vocal support, as well as my own doubts, re: buffers/tabs.

@rjt Thanks for posting! This has been up for a month and you and @natpen are the only ones to comment. As such, I am happy to give this a try. If I were to build that feature out and put it up on a branch, would you be willing to `pull` it and `build` it locally to give it a try and offer feedback? I'd like to have a few people try it before moving it off of an experimental branch, but I see no compelling reason not to give it a try. Particularly given the lack of vocal support, as well as my own doubts, re: buffers/tabs.

rjt commented

2020-04-12 05:15:34 +00:00

Sure! Feel free to ping me somehow when it's ready for testing.

I mean, it's not much extra hassle to press the spacebar then the number, it'd just be nice to have an even shorter shortcut :) It was the first way I tried to use a link before I read the instructions.

(BTW I've only recently heard about Gemini, and've justed started using Bombadillo to view Gemini and Gopher stuff. Really like it so far!)

Sure! Feel free to ping me somehow when it's ready for testing. I mean, it's not much extra hassle to press the spacebar then the number, it'd just be nice to have an even shorter shortcut :) It was the first way I tried to use a link before I read the instructions. (BTW I've only recently heard about Gemini, and've justed started using Bombadillo to view Gemini and Gopher stuff. Really like it so far!)

sloum commented

2020-04-13 06:02:49 +00:00

@rjt This turned out to be exceedingly easy to implement. After trying it out for a bit tonight I do really like it. Let me know what you think. Here is a link to the branch:

https://tildegit.org/sloum/bombadillo/src/branch/short-links

It is always cool to hear about new people finding gemini. It has been a pretty small group of folks so far, but we are all hopeful that it manages to build up a userbase. New content and support software is getting created pretty regularly :)

I'm glad you are liking Bombadillo. Thanks so much for reaching out about this update and for being willing to try it out.

@rjt This turned out to be exceedingly easy to implement. After trying it out for a bit tonight I _do_ really like it. Let me know what you think. Here is a link to the branch: https://tildegit.org/sloum/bombadillo/src/branch/short-links It is always cool to hear about new people finding gemini. It has been a pretty small group of folks so far, but we are all hopeful that it manages to build up a userbase. New content and support software is getting created pretty regularly :) I'm glad you are liking Bombadillo. Thanks so much for reaching out about this update and for being willing to try it out.

asdf commented

2020-04-14 03:38:00 +00:00

Great idea @rjt I'm really liking this addition to the control scheme.

@sloum this is implemented pretty nicely, and the
updated man page looks perfect. No issues from static analysis and make test.

We should update the user guide as well to add some info. Perhaps as part of the next stable release?

One nitpick would be to add a comment to this new case statement in TakeControlInput() to match the rest.

Great idea @rjt I'm really liking this addition to the control scheme. @sloum this is implemented pretty nicely, and the updated man page looks perfect. No issues from static analysis and `make test`. We should update the user guide as well to add some info. Perhaps as part of the next stable release? One nitpick would be to add a comment to this new case statement in `TakeControlInput()` to match the rest.

👍 1

rjt commented

2020-04-14 03:57:04 +00:00

Working great here! I really like the change!

Is there a way to shortcut to links past the tenth?

Working great here! I really like the change! Is there a way to shortcut to links past the tenth?

sloum commented

2020-04-14 04:25:30 +00:00

Hmmm, not that I can think of at the moment. At least not in a way that would avoid a leader key (which would put us right back where we were). If anyone has suggestions though I am open to playing around with this concept.

asdf commented

2020-04-14 10:56:49 +00:00

My suggestion is not as fast as the proposed control scheme, but would support links above 10 and not require a leader key:

In the default command mode, the user can type one or more numbers, followed by enter, to navigate to a link matching that number.

For example, to navigate to link 1: type 1 followed by enter.

To navigate to link 69: type 6, then 9, then enter.

In terms of the user interface, typing a number would be like entering command mode, with the number prefilling the input field. It might appear differently, perhaps using a special prompt prefix like "go to link number: ". It might also not accept non-navigation commands.

My suggestion is not as fast as the proposed control scheme, but would support links above 10 and not require a leader key: In the default command mode, the user can type one or more numbers, followed by enter, to navigate to a link matching that number. For example, to navigate to link 1: type 1 followed by enter. To navigate to link 69: type 6, then 9, then enter. In terms of the user interface, typing a number would be like entering command mode, with the number prefilling the input field. It might appear differently, perhaps using a special prompt prefix like "go to link number: ". It might also not accept non-navigation commands.

sloum commented

2020-04-14 18:32:26 +00:00

I had thought about that. I like it, though it does eliminate the quick access keys. Without a leader there is no way to differentiate intention from quick 1-10 vs a larger number followed by enter.

So the question becomes, is eliminating the need to press ':' or 'spc' before a link number the most important thing here? Or is having very quick access to some links more important.

I rather like the quick links, more than I thought I would. They are super fast and really convenient. I have not generally minded the extra keypress of spacebar to initiate a link number in the past. Only once this idea was brought up did I notice how fast it was otherwise. So I'm not sure where the good place to land would be. I am inclined toward what is currently on the branch as it is a very simple solution to a problem that does not require much code. Whereas the other solution will take a bit more code to accomplish... not the end of the world, but it does come to mind.

Let me know what y'all think and what preferences are :)

I had thought about that. I like it, though it does eliminate the quick access keys. Without a leader there is no way to differentiate intention from quick 1-10 vs a larger number followed by enter. So the question becomes, is eliminating the need to press ':' or 'spc' before a link number the most important thing here? Or is having _very_ quick access to _some_ links more important. I rather like the quick links, more than I thought I would. They are super fast and really convenient. I have not generally minded the extra keypress of spacebar to initiate a link number in the past. Only once this idea was brought up did I notice how fast it was otherwise. So I'm not sure where the good place to land would be. I am inclined toward what is currently on the branch as it is a very simple solution to a problem that does not require much code. Whereas the other solution will take a bit more code to accomplish... not the end of the world, but it does come to mind. Let me know what y'all think and what preferences are :)

rjt commented

2020-04-15 06:43:24 +00:00

Yeah, I'm the same. I didn't think the shortcut would feel as fast as it does, just thought it would be handy. So I like it even more than I thought I would.

I think @asdf 's solution is probably the best there could be, but if the two options are # , Enter for all numbers or just # for the first ten I think I prefer the shortcut for the first ten.

I was trying to remember how the shortcut for selecting buffers 11+ works in Weechat, but now I'm thinking I imagined it.

Yeah, I'm the same. I didn't think the shortcut would feel as fast as it does, just thought it would be handy. So I like it even more than I thought I would. I think @asdf 's solution is probably the best there could be, but if the two options are `#` , `Enter` for all numbers or just `#` for the first ten I think I prefer the shortcut for the first ten. I was trying to remember how the shortcut for selecting buffers 11+ works in Weechat, but now I'm thinking I imagined it.

asdf commented

2020-04-16 02:25:44 +00:00

I don't have a preference, rather happy to stick with what everyone else likes (which sounds like hotkeys for the first 10 links).

It would be possible to visit links above 10 with a modifier key - shift + 1 to go to 11, for example. This seems a bit limited and arcane, probably better to just stick with how it is currently.

I don't have a preference, rather happy to stick with what everyone else likes (which sounds like hotkeys for the first 10 links). It would be possible to visit links above 10 with a modifier key - shift + 1 to go to 11, for example. This seems a bit limited and arcane, probably better to just stick with how it is currently.

sloum commented

2020-05-13 14:32:42 +00:00

Since using the number keys to navigate has moved onto develop at this point I am going to close this. The PR that moved this feature on was #141

Since using the number keys to navigate has moved onto `develop` at this point I am going to close this. The PR that moved this feature on was #141

sloum closed this issue

2020-05-13 14:32:50 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.