Hi Junio
On 26/03/2024 15:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I think this is a good idea, I've left a few comments on the patches.
Thanks for your reviews. You raised very good points, all of which
I agree with. 'r'edisplay may work well (and I wonder "r | less" or
piping the hunk display to anything in general would be a useful
future enhancement).
It would certainly be nice to have some way of paging the output in the
future.
Response to an unrecognised command should
probably be a two-step process (a short "'h' is not understood. type
? for help" with list of commands upon request).
I however am unsure about omitting 'p' from the list when we did not
skip. We do omit 'k' when we have NO previous hunk to go back to,
but that is because we cannot do it even if we were asked to and the
only possible outcome is an error message. That is quite different
from 'p' where we can always show the current hunk when asked, even
if it is just after we have shown it already.
I agree there is a difference between omitting a key that simply does
not work because there is no previous hunk to omitting 'p'. My reasoning
was that 'p' does not do anything useful for the user, if they press it
they end up with exactly the same content being printed to the screen
and so I think it clutters up the prompt. I do think though that if the
user happens to press 'p' when it is not in the prompt then we should
just re-display the current hunk rather than printing an error.
Best Wishes
Phillip
