3 ms·
> Ctrl-C for copy is not a standard . . . and it cannot become so, due to the preexisting meaning. This is a non-sequitur. Standards change all the time, even
by torstenvl 4y ago
> Ctrl-C for copy is not a standard . . . and it cannot become so, due to the preexisting meaning.
This is a non-sequitur. Standards change all the time, even things with a preexisting meaning.
I also seriously doubt you believe it yourself. You brought up the example of Ctrl-Q earlier. Is it truly your position that it's not possible for the standard meaning of Ctrl-Q to be something other than XON?
- quesera 4y agoIt is my contention that, in a terminal environment, any attempts to redefine the standard meaning of Ctrl-Q as something other than XON will fail because it is impossible to do so consistently. Ctrl-Q does not even reach the application in a standard terminal configuration. It is possible to configure the terminal to allow it, of course, and some existing applications do so. However, it will not become "standard" because it cannot be ubiquitous, or even common except in certain classes of application. And what would you do with Ctrl-Q? Quit? Ctrl-C has you covered there (retroactive mnemonic: "Cancel"). So don't bother trying to redefine Ctrl-C either, you will only cause unnecessary pain for your users, and adoption hassles for your software. Windows users are not your target market for terminal-based software. So instead of inventing your own creole Esperanto patois, just speak the local language!
- torstenvl 4y agoThank you for confirming.
- ahefner 4y agoI'm curious if anyone uses terminal XON and XOFF except by accident these days.
- reaperducer 4y agoI do. All the time. Although sometimes I use [space] to resume output after pausing with Control-S. Between bogarting the Control key and flipping the directory separator, Windows should use the motto "We're different just because we can be."