Hi Rubén
On 26/03/2024 18:40, Rubén Justo wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:38:02PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
Let's introduce a new option to allow the user to explicitly request
the printing.
I wonder if we want to hide this option unless we've skipped rendering the
hunk in the same way that we hide other options that are not relevant to the
hunk being displayed.
You've got me scratching my head. Do you see any cases where we
shouldn't offer the new option?
If we've printed the hunk followed by the prompt then there is no point
in offering 'p' because it does not do anything useful for the user. It
is only useful offer to show the hunk again when we've printed an error
message that separates the prompt from the hunk. I don't think we should
make 'p' an error, but it seems like clutter to put it in the prompt
when it does not offer anything useful to the user.
I also wonder if 'r' for "re-display" would better
convey the intent of this keybinding.
I'm more inclined towards the 'p' because the verb is 'print'. Does
this reasoning make sense to you?
I'm not sure I follow as "re-display" or for that matter "reprint" are
also verbs. The reason I suggested "re-display" is that it I think the
name is a more accurate description because we're printing the same hunk
again.
diff --git a/add-patch.c b/add-patch.c
index 68f525b35c..444fd75b2a 100644
--- a/add-patch.c
+++ b/add-patch.c
@@ -1388,6 +1388,7 @@ N_("j - leave this hunk undecided, see next undecided hunk\n"
"/ - search for a hunk matching the given regex\n"
"s - split the current hunk into smaller hunks\n"
"e - manually edit the current hunk\n"
+ "p - print again the current hunk\n"
I think "print the hunk again" is clearer
The word 'current' is in my proposal because IMHO it adds value making
explicit what we're offering. Maybe "print the current hunk again"?
What do you think?
I've no objecting to "current"
Best Wishes
Phillip
