[nama] Re: FX Editor

Hey, Julien et al.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0100, Julien Claassen wrote:
> Hello Namites!
>   OK, the readline FXeditor would be possible, but I still thinkk
> not prefferable. If it comes to be, then it must be a special mode,
> you wouldn't want those keybindings trashing your workflow. There
Agreed whole-heartedly; but I think that's what Joel meant anyway. It
wouldn't really make sense to have it possibly interfere with the
regular working mode.

> are commands, which start with capital letters, in a way:
> Changing to Buses, Mixdown and Master and potentially Custom_commands. :-)
Caps offer too many possibilities for confusion. What about a good old
colon? We could have a reverse-vi philosophy, where colon switches to a
"visual" mode and q returns you to command-mode. 

>   so the editor mode... But what about using a simple standard
> getch() and printing only one or two bottom lines and letting them
Reading like this would be a blocking operation, I think.

> slide up the screen. That's what Bristol does. You get some info and
> then the bottom line with current parameter. ach time you change the
> parameter, the last value is printed one line above and the new
> value is on the bottom line. If you need extra info like help or
> whatever, you press a key for that. Say: '?' or 'F1'. They are
> fairly standard.
Yes, as I've said, Bristol's interface is pleasant and straightforward,
though, of course, it needs to do far less than Nama's interface. 

If we should go the readline route, what about jjust having a multi-line
prompt in certain modes, rather than mucking about trying to keep
certain lines at the top/bottom?

If readline can't live up to the task and ncurses is needlessly
complicated, it might be worth thinking about s-lang: it has some basic
PERL bindings, a mechanism for polling input, and the examples I read
didn't seem too scary.

Thoughts gentlemen?

Cheers,
S.M.

Other related posts: