> > > [ We should dynamically adapt the manpages ] > > [ That's not possible with function-based configuration ] > > I do not quite understand (or not at all?): even if one can in principle > use the function call based configuration to do 'arbitrary' things, as it > stands, it seems not illegitimate for a user to read the files in ~/.ion3 as > "static config-files with a strange syntax". my point is simply that at least > for a start it does not harm to approach it in that way and tell the new user: > "if you want to change shortcut x, modify the corresponding line in file y". > so what exactly do you mean by 'not doable reliably'? could it not at least > be done in a "justifable" way? What is meant here, that one cannot dynamically adapt the manpages to the current shortcuts bound to specific actions. Since one binds a keyboard shortcut to an arbitrary piece of lua code, there could be a lot of different ways to write "close the current frame", so ion can't really tell which key(s) are bound to "close the current frame".
One could of course string-compare the bound lua code to the default lua code, which will work when the user has only changed keybindings, not the code that it is supposed to run. Yet, this is rather ugly and unreliable (defaults might change, for example). Pointing a user to which file the default key binding for an action is, is possible of course (but that will falter as soon as bindings are moved by the user). Gr. Matthijs
