Hi! > > Relying on timeout seems like bad idea to me. > > Its against UI guidelines (they say things should > > not depend on timing, except in games). > > That makes sense in general. That's why these timeout based > features should be optional.
Being optional is not excuse for breaking guidelines. > > Mutt cerainly waits for you to press <enter>, no timeouts there. > > It the app waits for enter, then it also must provide an > additional visual feedback - display the processed numbers > somewhere (like mutt does). > > The timeout based solution has the advantage, that it provides the > visual feedback, because the selection cursor moves immediately > as the keys are pressed. ... > Implementing that enter based approach would also be much more > complicated, you would need an additional text input widget > somewhere. It also has no advantage for those people who don't > mind the timeout. It only imposes an unnecessary additional key > press on them. Timeout breaks randomly on overloaded systems and slow networks. Bad idea. What about non-number key ending "move-by-number" mode? No timeouts neccessary. I still dont see how it is better than C-S, through. -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need... _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel