Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, you could trigger the action immediately after seeing _enough_ number
> >> of characters to disambiguate instead of stop-and-prompt, I guess? That
> >> way, you would get a single-key merely as a degenerate case when the
> >> choices are all distinct.
> >
> > I don't think that's very nice. On the one hand, you'd really want to
> > allow the user to delete some of the input again if he decides to do
> > something else instead, and we'd either need readline or need to
> > reinvent it for that....
>
> But doesn't the original "single-keypress" theme shares that problem
> anyway? It trades the ability to "delete some of the it again if he
> decides to" away, in exchange for something else (probably "quicker input"
> or "perceived ease of use").
I don't think so: With the single-key input, you _know_ that whatever
key you press will be executed immediately. In a prefix scheme, the
prompt might (you don't even know; you'll have to look and check) wait
for more input, but you cannot undo the choice even though it has not
been executed yet.
*shrug*
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
