[Openmcl-devel] Is it just me, or is the return key all messed up?

Ron Garret ron at awun.net
Mon Jul 13 21:08:30 UTC 2009


I just upgraded to the latest trunk version, and the behavior of the  
return key in the listener seems to have changed in a very annoying  
way.  The previous behavior was:

1.  If the cursor was on the last line of the listener, and there was  
a complete sexpr on that line, that sexpr would be evaluated.

2.  If the cursor was on the last line of the listener and there was  
not a complete sexpr on that line, a newline would inserted.

3.  If the cursor was anywhere else in the buffer, the sexpr to the  
left of the cursor would replace the last line in the buffer.  (IMHO,  
this was not the correct behavior.  The correct behavior is what Fred  
used to do: append the sexpr to the left of the cursor to the last  
line.  But that's another issue.)

The new behavior, as best I can make out, is:

1.  If the cursor is at the end of the buffer (not merely on the last  
line) and there is a complete sexpr to the left of the cursor then the  
sexpr is evaluated.  This is as it should be.  However...

2. If the cursor is on a line other than the last, then the sexpr on  
that line is copied to the last line AND it is evaluated.  This is  
badly broken IMHO because there is no opportunity to edit the line.   
Now to re-use a previous line of input with changes you have to  
select, copy, click, and paste.  Very annoying.  Worse...

3.  If the cursor is on the last line but not at the end of the line,  
then a newline is inserted.  In addition, if there was a complete  
sexpr on the last line, it is evaluated.  However, the cursor does not  
drop down to the new last line.  It stays where it is.  This is just  
b0rken.  It's particularly annoying because there's a bug in the  
listener scrolling code so that if you do this at the bottom of a  
window, you get output that you don't see unless you manually scroll  
the window down.

My question is: is there a reason that these changes were made?  Am I  
the only one who is annoyed by them?  Has anyone already figured out  
if there's a way to fix this with an appropriate incantation in the  
ccl-ide-init file?

Thanks,
rg




More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list