On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:44:56AM -0700, Chris Brannon wrote:
> Karl Dahlke <eklhad@comcast.net> writes:
> 
> > g$
> > go to the last link on the line.
> 
> Yep, it seems to follow the principle of least astonishment.  I like it.
> I frequently encounter pages with 12 links on a line, so this would be useful!
> i$* belongs, if for no other reason than regularity of
> the command set.

Agreed.

> > > lsl  file length
> 
> How would these work?  Would they just operate on the current file?
> Another alternative would be to have a single lsf command that operates
> kind of like a toggle.  Initially, you just see filenames in the buffer,
> like the situation today.  But when lsf is invoked, the buffer is rebuilt
> to display stat info alongside each filename.
> Executing lsf again would hide the extra info.
> This one isn't all that important to me either way.

The lsf idea sounds sensible to me.

> > Should I continue to use <func to run an edbrowse function,
> 
> You should keep it.  Yes, it's ugly, but it means that we never ever ever
> have to worry about colliding with user functions when extending the
> edbrowse command set.  Sometimes there's a lot to be said for
> conventions, even ugly ones.

Agreed. Tbh I've never had an issue with that.
What I would like though is some sort of variable support in edbrowse functions.
It'd also be nice if the ok prompt could alter if a command being ran returns
non-zero, and perhaps allow this to be checked in edbrowse functions.

Cheers,
Adam.