3 ms·

> The same people often complain that terminals break with "standard shortcuts" because they can't copy with ctrl-C... It does break with standard shortcuts. A

> The same people often complain that terminals break with "standard shortcuts" because they can't copy with ctrl-C... It does break with standard shortcuts. And worse, there's absolutely no consistency between terminal applications on which shortcuts to use. It's a mess, and complaints are warrented.

senko 2y ago
Ctrl-C sending a SIGINT to the program running in the terminal is the standard shortcut. Woe to the terminal arrogant enough to assume their precious copy/paste is more important. Now, Super-C vs Ctrl-Shift-C (across the UI), we can argue about.
- eviks 2y ago
  The more important thing isn't "their precious", but "user precious", where terminal is just from of a million apps that copy on Ctrl-C, so there is no woe, but praise, to any terminal app that reflects this basic fact and doesn't subvert user expectations
  - senko 2y ago
    I guess we have very different sets of users in mind, then. Ctrl-C (and Ctrl-Z, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-V and many other standard command-line shortcuts) have been around for longer than many of those users have been alive, and are part of POSIX standard. The proof is in the pudding, though. I haven't seen any terminal apps that actually do what you praise (by default, as you can always remap the shortcuts to your heart content - to each their poison).
    - eviks 2y ago
      Not really, all the same users, you just place way too much faith in the defaults. Case in point: your second point. Though your pudding is stale: bad defaults are a common scourge of software, so the fact that something is default means nothing positive on its own
    - akho 2y ago
      > I haven't seen any terminal apps that actually do what you praise Micro editor, Emacs with CUA-mode. Very few TUIs respect Ctrl-C. Note how it doesn’t quit your shell, for example. It’s more that it’s bound to something already, and there is no common concept of a clipboard between terminal applications anyway. Asking the terminal itself to copy on Ctrl-C, and send Ctrl-C on Ctrl-Shift-C, is usually uncomplicated. If that’s something the user wants. We allow all sorts.

senko 2y ago

Ctrl-C sending a SIGINT to the program running in the terminal is the standard shortcut. Woe to the terminal arrogant enough to assume their precious copy/paste is more important. Now, Super-C vs Ctrl-Shift-C (across the UI), we can argue about.

eviks 2y ago
The more important thing isn't "their precious", but "user precious", where terminal is just from of a million apps that copy on Ctrl-C, so there is no woe, but praise, to any terminal app that reflects this basic fact and doesn't subvert user expectations
- senko 2y ago
  I guess we have very different sets of users in mind, then. Ctrl-C (and Ctrl-Z, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-V and many other standard command-line shortcuts) have been around for longer than many of those users have been alive, and are part of POSIX standard. The proof is in the pudding, though. I haven't seen any terminal apps that actually do what you praise (by default, as you can always remap the shortcuts to your heart content - to each their poison).
  - eviks 2y ago
    Not really, all the same users, you just place way too much faith in the defaults. Case in point: your second point. Though your pudding is stale: bad defaults are a common scourge of software, so the fact that something is default means nothing positive on its own
  - akho 2y ago
    > I haven't seen any terminal apps that actually do what you praise Micro editor, Emacs with CUA-mode. Very few TUIs respect Ctrl-C. Note how it doesn’t quit your shell, for example. It’s more that it’s bound to something already, and there is no common concept of a clipboard between terminal applications anyway. Asking the terminal itself to copy on Ctrl-C, and send Ctrl-C on Ctrl-Shift-C, is usually uncomplicated. If that’s something the user wants. We allow all sorts.