[Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Bryan Stansell bryan@conserver.com
Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:33:28 GMT
There is certainly going to be a need to either redirect stdin/stdout of the command to the console or not (some "interactive" flag). If not, stdin would probably be /dev/null and stdout could be anyone connected to the console (so everyone sees the output). Maybe it should just be the console or nothing at all. Something to think about... Bryan On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:01 AM, Fabien Wernli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 02:43:46PM -0700, Bryan Stansell wrote: >> And I'm all for making it more generic as well...perhaps by making the 'k' command programmable - in the sense that you can associate a command with any character ([a-z0-9]) after 'k' and give it a label so you know what the command is supposed to do. >> >> So, 'k' for 'k'ommand...or perhaps even '!' to invoke a command? Harder to type, but consistent with vi, for example. > > Great. I vote for '!'. > Also, maybe it would be interesting to have a distinction between commands > that output something or not on std(err|out). > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@conserver.com > https://www.conserver.com/mailman/listinfo/users