Hi Jason,
Thanks for you response!
> the actions do indeed match those in the command list. whether there are
> any undocumented ones, i don;t know. i suppose you'd have to go poking
> in the source.
IMO users shouldn't have to go to the source code to compensate for
lacking documentation.
Out of curiosity I did take a peek at the source and found this that
there are indeed undocumented actions:
- 'display-flag' is an undocumented alias for 'display-option'
- 'end' is an undocumented alias for 'goto-end'
- 'first-cmd' is an undocumented alias for 'firstcmd'
- 'flush-repaint' is an undocumented alias for 'repaint-flush'
- 'toggle-flag' is an undocumented alias for 'toggle-option'
- 'debug' is an entirely undocumented action
- 'forw-skip' is an entirely undocumented action
- 'shell' appears in the lesskey(1) man page but does not work
> the actions will roughly match those described in the
> less(1) COMMANDS section. so for example in less(1):
>
> d | ^D
> Scroll forward n lines ...
>
> and in lesskey(1):
>
> d forw-scroll
> ^D forw-scroll
Doing this seems unnecessarily tedious to me. I'd much prefer to have
the actions explained in the lesskey(1) man page. Doing this still
doesn't explain everything; e.g. this still confuses me:
s toggle-option o
translates to
s filename
Save the input to a file. This only works if the input is a pipe,
not an ordinary file.
> we could maybe make this clearer:
>
> #command
> \r forw-line
> ...
>
> to sth like this:
>
> #command action
> \r forw-line
> ...
I'd prefer a separate list where each action is described with a little
more detail, than just having the example.
> however we still import less. i'd want to make sure that's not stepping
> on anyone's toes to make local changes.
I wanted to hear some second opinions first and make sure, that I didn't
miss anything. If I still think the documentation is lacking after that,
I could also suggest changes upstream.
No comments:
Post a Comment