Re: [edbrowse-dev] spurious empty buffers from textareas

[Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckhallenbeck@gmail.com>]

I vote yes. It's a small price to pay for long-term stability, IMO.
My preference for the new command would be ib, but I would be okay with
another.

Many thanks.

Chuck

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Karl Dahlke wrote:

> These have annoyed me for quite a while, and come to find they annoy others as well.
> As per our chat discussions, I made a change, but it's a UI change so should be described here.
> (Not everyone is on chat.)
>
> A fill out form with a textarea use to allocate a buffer for that area at browse time, looking like <buffer 7>
> It now waits to see if you're actually going to use it, since 90% of the time you don't.
> It begins life as <buffer ?>
>
> An itext (for input text) command  allocates a buffer and changes it to <buffer 7>
> Then you can write text in buffer 7 and submit the form like before.
> It's one more step for something that is rarely done,
> but it prevents a ton of empty buffers from accumulating.
>
> I have no strong feelings about the actual command name.
>
> itext (input text)
> ibuf (input buffer)
> iw (input write)
> ita (input textarea)
>
> Long as it starts with i I'm ok.
>
> If you change line 760 in decorate.c the old behavior returns.
>
> I'm not documenting any of this until a majority thinks it's a good idea.
> My vote is yes but others may disagree.
>
> Karl Dahlke
>

-- 
   Here In Northeast Ohio, The Moon is Waxing Crescent (10% of Full)
    Sent from Nick's missing iPhone.