On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > I just think the stdout and stderr ought to be visible at the same > time. Or perhaps it would suffice to show stderr above stdout, or > automatically switch, or something.
I agree stderr ought to be visible. I picture either a smaller window at the bottom of the terminal for that, or else a keyboard combination that switches the output window over to stderr. You could have a little dwm microcosm where stdin/stdout/stderr window groups are tagged with history entry numbers. Windows could be tagged e.g. 104out and 104err... if you wanted to overengineer things. I much prefer the idea of one input pane, one output pane, and one error pane. > That sounds good to me. And you could head each 'output box' with the > command which produced it. (Though numbering could be useful too.) My thought is you could type an entire shell script into the input box, so heading the output with e.g. a 15-line script would get cumbersome. There's no reason not to just save the command in the input window and tag the output with its entry number. You could even select a history entry to be re-entered into the input buffer for further editing, run the new version, and then cause the terminal to save both versions of the output so you could diff them. > I'm considering writing a 'next gen' 9term, if you'll excuse the > expression, and these ideas (a terminal 'canvas', and separated > streams) sound like they would be a very nice fit. I've been thinking about a separate-streams terminal for a long time; I'd love to see what you come up with. -- # Kurt H Maier
