> I agree. What I did was check "Never" on "Pause after run"
and put reads in the menu/ext file
Oho, that's *very* clever, thank you!
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Mike Smithson <mdooli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. What I did was check "Never" on "Pause after run"
> and put reads in the menu/ext files where I knew I would
> want the pause. Something like this:
>
> + t r & ! t t
> @ Do something on the current file
> CMD=%{Enter command}
> $CMD ./%0f
> read -e -n1 -p'Hit a key... '
>
> Otherwise, if I'm going to type a command that I want to see
> the output, like "make", I hit CTRL-O right before I type to go
> into terminal mode.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:12 -0700, Ben <2blkb...@nemontel.net> wrote:
>
> MC has three config options for what to do after executing files by
>> pressing return with the selection on them:
>>
>> 1 Close the shell every time, returning to MC
>> 2 Leave the window open every time, press return to... return
>> 3 Close the window only on "dumb" terminals (what?)
>>
>> Number one leaves you unable to see the output of a command. So you type
>> ls
>> and it's kind of useless. Or any other command or script that has output
>> you need to see.
>>
>> Number two works for those things where you need to see output, but if you
>> don't, and there are things you routinely execute that do good things for
>> you that simply need to be done on command (like turning on house lights,
>> my particular thang) then it eventually becomes a bit of annoyance that it
>> doesn't just get done.
>>
>> Now, I may be missing something buried in that "dumb terminal option", but
>> it seems to me that this would be a nice solution:
>>
>> You know how the F4 editor keeps track of what line you're on in which
>> file? That's *lovely*.
>>
>> Well, how about modifying option two so that if you press return, it does
>> what it always did, that is, close the shell and return. But if you press
>> something else, perhaps ESC or whatever, from then on, when that command
>> is
>> run, the shell closes when the run is done.
>>
>> This implies you'd need an operation to remove the "close" status in case
>> the cat stepped on the selected key at the wrong time, but that doesn't
>> seem like a high hurdle, lots of room in the menus.
>>
>> Another approach would be an option to pause only if the command has
>> output
>> other than CR and LF, which doesn't require saving file names anywhere,
>> but
>> I think that might be a little unsatisfactory as if a command might create
>> output or not, you might get a little uncertain if you saw what you
>> thought
>> you saw.
>>
>> Number three... I use the usual terminal types. Are they "dumb"? I have no
>> idea. I don't see anything in the OS X shell preferences to variably
>> designate the terminal as "dumb" or not based on what's executing, so I'm
>> guessing this can't do what I'm thinking. Is it useful to anyone? If not,
>> perhaps it could be the "pause only if command produces output" option
>> instead.
>>
>> So, anyone? Feasibility problems? Good? Bad? Stupid? Selfish? Did I
>> completely miss or misunderstand a feature?
>>
>> --Ben
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peace and Cheer
>
_______________________________________________
mc mailing list
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc
