Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Select to the only bookmark #100
Description of the Change
This PR adds update the
It follows the same behavior of
You can take advantage of the selection commands even you don't know exactly if the cursor is above or below
Nothing at all, since it follows the same behavior as
This PR closes #94 .
The one question I have here is around directionality of the operations. While it makes sense to make "Select to ..." and "Jump to ..." operations work equivalently, selecting a range adds another wrinkle to things. For example, take the following file contents:
Let's assume that the cursor is at the beginning of the line containing
But when executing "Select to next bookmark", directionality does matter. If I am at the line containing
Hi @lee-dohm ,
I understand your point, but this PR was created to fix #94, which was created almost an year ago and labeled as bug and triaged because the
I think that the reason for that is: The user should not worry if the unique bookmark is above or below the current cursor position. He/She would like to
Do you think this behavior (
If, as you say, this is intended to create circular movement, or the illusion thereof, shouldn't two selections be created then in my scenario above?
If your proposed change creates only one selection as described in my previous comment, why do you believe that is more correct behavior than the two selections I describe here? How would that represent circular movement?
I don't think it is more/less correct, than your proposal, this was just my interpretation of the expected behavior described in the original issue.
As I said, I think the reason was the user does not worry where the bookmark is located, it just selects to it. IMHO, create two selections is a bit weird, but it's just my point of view.
What to you think?
@alefragnani Well, you've already taken care of pinging the correct people
FYI @rsese and I work on the same team and were in the same meeting with other Atom team members when we discussed the question of what should be the correct behavior. We all had the same concerns after the discussion, hence the reason why I asked the questions. Additionally, I'm the one that created the triage process for the Atom team, so I'm more than familiar with how we use the
Also, while @alexandernst created the issue, the Atom team are the ones that are going to have to maintain the implementation going forward and answer questions as to why things are implemented the way they are when someone disagrees with the decisions that were made. So the Atom development team, of which I am a part, will need to make a final determination on what most people will expect the behavior to be, even if that differs from the original issue description.
I hope that makes things a bit more clear and eases your concerns and frustration.
Don't worry. There is no concern, nor frustration. I know you from the very beginning of Atom. (If I remember correctly, you were an avid forum's user and based on your engagement, you were contacted by the Atom's team to be part of the project). Even if my memory is playing with me, I'm sure that if you ask more info about some issue, you have a good reason to do so
I'm contributing to the project because I felt confident about the original issue, and noted that I could contribute a bit more to the project. I'm open to update the PR if necessary.
In fact, I would like to bring some of the features of my Bookmarks extension for VS Code, but of course, only if you (the maintainers) would like to receive. I noted some open issues that I could contribute as well.