Re: [9fans] acme scrollbar

[a@9srv.net]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

I dislike this idea. I think for most people, most of the time,
the lines acme's working with will fit well within the width of
a window. Yeah, I bet most of us have run into longer lines at
times, but the interface is optimized for the common case. I
wouldn't like to see that go.

Having the "undo" (paralleling the "undo" of a 1-2, 1-3 chord)
is very nice. The feature is certainly *not* "useless" for not
being 100% reliable; what's it' off by, a line? Even that's a
"good enough" job for your eye to find the line quick enough.
Anthony

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2843 bytes --]

From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme scrollbar
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:34:06 +0200
Message-ID: <f4d8fa40807021534q52ddcab0n51a51140bbb2d9e9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/3/08, Martin Neubauer <m.ne@gmx.net> wrote:
> The left click is basically doing the opposite of the right click - it moves
>  the top line to the position of the click. That way a left click after a
>  right click restores the previous view of the file. (There may be some small
>  distortion due to lines longer than the width of the window but that doesn't
>  really matter much.)

Oh, i ruled this possibility out, because I didn't see any opposite behaviour.
The long lines *do* matter much.
This feature is useless when it's unreliable.
What do you think about my idea of moving the line to the bottom instead?