April 2014 - implementations-list - lists.ourproject.org

<backspace> not bound properly in haskell-mode
by Keshav Kini 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

When I have a .hs file open in a buffer (i.e. with haskell-mode activated), it seems that typing <backspace> in <N> state actually deletes characters. Investigating a bit, I see that in other modes - such as message-mode, in which I'm typing this email - doing describe-key on <backspace> yields the following: DEL (translated from <backspace>) runs the command evil-backward-char, which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `evil-commands.el'. In haskell-mode, however, I get: <backspace> runs the command haskell-indentation-delete-backward-char, which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `haskell-indentation.el'. The difference I notice is that in the first, we have "DEL (translated from <backspace>)", but in the second, just "<backspace>". From this I gather that evil-mode probably traps the key DEL, but not the key <backspace>. Should evil-mode perhaps trap <backspace> directly as well as DEL? Or is this a bug in haskell-mode, i.e. should haskell-mode be trapping DEL instead of <backspace>? -Keshav

2 2

Last character in visual selection remains unhighlighted
by Leo Alekseyev 28 May '14

28 May '14

Hi all, It seems that a lot of the time, visual selection for me is visually off by one character. For example, consider the following line, with the cursor at BOL. (123) If I issue commands like "vf)", "v%", I end with the closing paren under the cursor, but the visual mark will NOT include the closing paren, and will only include the first 3 characters, "(123". Now, it is important to note that if I then try to yank the selection, the yanked region is exactly what it should be, i.e. it will include the closing paren. As such, this defect for me is purely cosmetic, but a little annoying. Is this a known issue? Is it possible there is some misconfiguration on my part? Thanks, --Leo

5 7

campsites
by Kohut Rients 01 Apr '14

01 Apr '14

nham. Where di Ience. Unfortunately I had done nothing of the kind. The play was conceived before the Independent Theatre had come into existence. The end was foreseen from the beginning; the tragedy being implicit in the subject. The tragic motive lay deeper than the death of the heroine, who might have been allowed to live, if that last symbolic pageantry had not had its dramatic fitness. Given the characters and the circumstances, the end is the absolutely right one. Of course the circumstances might have been altered, and a sort of reconciliation patched up between husband and wife. But this would be a somewhat flat piece of cynicism, only justifiable on the ground taken by the _Telegraph_, that modern actors cannot play, and ought not to be expected to play, modern tragedy. The conventional "happy ending" demanded by sentimental critics to suit the taste of sentimental playgoers, the divided parents left weeping in each other's arms over the recovered child, would also be quite possible. But surely even a modern dramatist may for once be allowed to preserve a grain of respect for nature and dramatic art? This would be an outrage against both. It would not be decent comedy, it would be mere burlesque, as sentimentality always is to the judicious. The only other alternative I see is the exodus of the wife, with or without her child; or of the husband, with or without his mistress. But this would be rank Ibsenism, and outrage British morality, which would be still more dreadful. Only a "practical dramatist" could cut the Gordian knot, and at the last moment introduce the erring Mrs. Tremaine, still charming in the garb of a Sister of Mercy, to bring down the curtain upon a tableau of Woman returning to her Duty, and Man to his Morality. And I, alas! am not a "practical dramatist." Still, if the play had been an experiment, I might have further experimented with it, and rehandled its endi --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. http://www.avast.com

1 0