-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 629
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Dmenu] Implement a select rows for dmenu multi-select. #1807
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -147,6 +147,13 @@ Or any combination: '5,-3:,7:11,2,0,-9' | |
.PP | ||
Urgent row, mark \fIX\fP as urgent. See \fB\fC-a\fR option for details. | ||
|
||
.PP | ||
\fB\fC-select-rows\fR \fIX\fP | ||
|
||
.PP | ||
If multi-select is enabled, pre-select rows, See \fB\fC-a\fR option for format details. | ||
If same row is specified multiple times, it state is toggled on subsequential sets. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think this behavior is surprising. I prefer the box is checked if the row id appears more than once, and unchecked if the row id doesn't appear. Is there any reason you think toggling based on odd/even number of occurence a superior behavior? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It would make it so much easier to select all rows except a number of rows... There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I see. I would have suggested adding an option named So now the question is: This python-like range syntax is also used in other options as well, do these options also support this toggling behavior? If they do, it is consistent. If they don't, it means that the range syntax is lacking, and instead of adding toggling behavior, we should improve the range syntax (in other PR/discussion ofc). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is another option called There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Neither '-a' or '-u' document that it has the toggling behaviour. I have no idea why you think it does? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (yes sorry, I misread and corrected my post already. It seems we did this in parallel). I was saying about the consistency because the proposed solution ('&','!' ) or the new one now ( 'and' and 'not') is not the type of syntax we in rofi. To specify multiple items, we use ',' separator in several places. entry, prompt {
}
window {
children: [inputbar, listview];
} or rofi -show drun -modes 'drun,window' So if we list multiple ranges we should stick to ',' as list separator. To negate we use '-' in the search entry box. But this is not ideal for this usecase. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You need to complete this sentence or I wouldn't understand.
Reusing
It's not important for my use cases right now, neither is the toggling feature, I only brought this up because I dislike the toggling behavior. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because negative numbers are a thing. This gives me an idea: Many websites have a search syntax similar to GitHub issue ( There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is not the type of syntax we use in rofi.
eeuh what?? I was talking about adding items not intersecting, so ',' makes sense for having a list of ranges that should be selected. (As it is now). We use ',' to separate in a list already. How we specify what we then exclude then is not clear. If we start describing thing in set theory.. then we should use the right syntax for that.. I would be fine with using ∪,∩, \ (union, intersection, set diff if i remember correctly) But I think we will have lost most of the developers/users by now. Anyway I give up. If anybody wants to pick this up and create a PR , I'll reconsider. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. OK. I have created #1809 which removes the toggling behavior. I only proposed a variety of different syntaxes to replace toggling because I dislike it. |
||
|
||
.PP | ||
\fB\fC-only-match\fR | ||
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The term "select" can be confusing since it already used to mean highlighting the current item in the list before either confirm selection or check the box.
Then again, Rofi has already name the flag
-multi-select
so it could be that the maintainers do care about this term.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is the term that is used everywhere else.. Using another term here would be confusing.
Multi-select is a nice to have and does not completely fit anyway.