On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:15:05PM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:46:59AM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > > The subject says it all. Both input fields store their entries under > > > "input" section in the history file. Should we change the section name > > > for each or only for one of them ? > > > > > both. "input" is too generic to mean anything ... > > is "input" associated with anything else, btw? > > Nope. But variations are used in several places i.e. > "input1" , "input-1", "input-def" ... Those need > proper names too, but at least they don't use the > same section to information from different sources. > yup. be considerate, though - sometime it *does* make sense to share the history.
> If we change the names people will loose their history > once they update their MC that's the major drawback. > indeed, but i would not call this major. it's just an annoyance. if something is too worthwhile to be just lost, it belongs into a shell script/alias/function. i repeatedly made that experience ... :} -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel