On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:44:06AM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote: > Hello dear mutt developers, > I prepared a merge request that needs some consideration. [...]
Surprising absolutely no one I'm sure, I agree with Kevin. You already found the correct solution to your problem (use stty to unbind or change the terminal's interpretation of ctrl-y), and generally people who use console-based programs tend to know and expect those behaviors. If you'd just posted your problem on mutt-users the first place, you'd likely have had an answer in minutes how to fix it. :) There are probably dozens of people on mutt's mailing lists who understand the issue and recognize it immediately. Half way through reading your post I was going to reply with something like "Just use stty to change it..." until I saw you already figured it out. Mutt's behavior here doesn't need to be changed, and doing so will likely surprise people, causing the exact opposite confusion to yours, but one that is unexpectedly mutt-specific. Seems like a bad idea to me. > Users should not need to know such deep intrinsics of terminals > these days. First of all they're hardly deep... stty is terminals 101. Pick up any Linux/Unix primer, and look in the section on terminals or terminal applications, and I can just about guarantee there will be a discussion about stty and how certain terminal control behaviors are bound to key sequences with it (as well as a number of other things it can do). If it doesn't, it's not a very good primer. It's part of basic terminal operation. And if you've been using Unix for 20 years, how is it possible you've never encountered the backspace problem? That was a problem virtually everywhere for the better part of a decade. [In case it's not obvious, the solution to most of the easier variants of that problem is stty erase--though it did get rather annoyingly complicated for the not-so-simple cases.] But even if such knowledge was deep... Why? If you're going to make heavy use of something, how is it ever in your best intrest to intentionally remain completely ignorant of how it works? I think the only type of user for whom that statement makes sense is one who will never use a terminal application, of which there certainly are some, even on Unix systems. Then for sure, learning how terminals work is a complete waste of that person's time, unless they happen to find it interesting. If it's never affected you before, you should consider yourself lucky. If I cared to spend the time to dig them up I could point you at probably a dozen or more bugs I've filed or commented on over the years that were related to terminal behaviors, most of which were caused by some well-intentioned but misguided change in configuration or coding approach on the part of some package maintainer, who didn't really understand why it was the way it was before. Blech. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
