On Sun, Apr 5, 2020, at 06:57, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 12:11:09 +0200 > Georg Lehner <jo...@at.anteris.net> wrote: > > A question: why is the scrollback-patch not included in `st` already > > exactly my point. I see no reason why there can't at least be a > scrollback, which defaults to 0 in config.h. > Wouldn't this make all sides happy?
Now I am thinking that it would be good idea to have a scrollback program and/or library that is used by st, xterm, dvtm, tmux, splitvt, mtm. For those programs that do not come with a scrollback feature, this would add the scrollback feature with very little (scrollback library) or no (scrollback program) extra code. For some of those programs that already have the feature, stripping out their custom code would reduce complexity. If all of these programs used the same program/library, there would be a consistent user interface which would be really nice. I think that some people consider a scrollback buffer in st to be feature bloat, so they keep it out of the main line and force it into an extra patch. The attitude is: If you want scrollback, use dvtm or tmux, or the scrollback patch, or do things in a Plan 9 sort of way (which I am not too familiar with). When I first learned of st, this attitude really baffled me. How could a scrollback feature in a terminal be considered extraneous? Now that I've learned more about suckless and about how Plan 9 works (though Plan 9 still confuses me, I haven't completely wrapped my head around it), it doesn't seem so crazy. But still, I always use the scrollback patch for st.
