Rename layer-toggle to layer-hold (or layer-shift)

[oblitzitate]

Anytime I come back to my kmonad config after not touching it for a long time, I've found myself having to look up the difference between layer-toggle and layer-switch. This seems to indicate a red flag with regards to nomenclature.

So here are my arguments as to why the term 'toggle' is not a great term to use:

• 'Toggle' does not usually imply a momentary switch.

• It contradicts QMK's usage of the word.

• It contradicts games' usage of the word (e.g. FPS games differentiates between toggle and hold for the prone key)

• It contradicts applications' usage of the word (e.g. A lot of apps have a toggle visibility button that isn't momentary)

My suggestions are to use layer-hold or layer-shift instead. I prefer the former word but I wouldn't mind the latter. If there's a better word, I also welcome that.

[david-janssen]

You are absolutely correct. layer-toggle is a terrible name that I end up looking up myself whenever I reconfigure kmonad.

However, I am also not a fan of layer-hold, since the term hold already has a very rich meaning in KMonad (with all the different tapping and holding buttons) and layer-shift creates a lot of confusion with the word shift, which is another button.

Maybe we could use transient-layer for momentary switch, and persist-layer for when we make a lasting alteration to the layer-stack?

EDIT: or maybe persistent-layer, since that way we keep the terms grammatically symmetrical.

[oblitzitate]

'Transcient' is a bit too esoteric and doesn't quite convey holding something down.

Why not just use momentary-layer since we've already been using 'momentary' a lot to define it. It also fits with QMK's vocabulary. Also a momentary switch is already a thing in the real world which involves holding a button down, so the word fits perfectly.

persistent-layer is fine to me. It contrasts well with momentary-layer

[slotThe]

On Fri, Jun 10 2022 00:46, oblitzitate wrote: 'Transcient' is a bit too esoteric and doesn't quite convey holding something down.

"Transient" is how Emacs calls keymaps that are only active for one key press, so I think having this in kmonad would only make sense for keymaps where the sequence of actions goes something like "T<layer-key> T<key>" instead of "P<layer-key> T<key> R<layer-key>".

[david-janssen]

Hmmmm.. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/temporary

How about mortal then? :-D And I guess ephemeral is even more esoteric than transient.

But, on a more serious note: momentary seems alright to me, although that does make it sound like the layer might disappear before I release the key. Maybe then we should just bite the bullet and call it temporary layer, or temporary-overlay.

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm thinking about adding these as alternate names, I intend to keep the old names around until I decide to truly break keymap backward-compat.

[oblitzitate]

The best name should convey that it only exists under a condition or for a limited time, that it is held down, and the name should be easily understood by the average user.

I don't think mortal is good since that word is more associated with living beings, and life and death.

I prefer momentary over temporary because while they both kind of mean the same thing, momentary already has associations with being held down due to the 'momentary switch' in electronics and QMK's layer descriptions.

I do think hold would've been the best name because it's succinct, and I believe the average user would easily distinguish between tap-hold (action-action) and layer-hold (thing-action). There shouldn't be confusion since hold means the same thing in both terms. The only difference is the word's partner, no? Though I understand why you don't like it as much.

[david-janssen]

I don't think mortal is good

Yeah, that was very much a joke ;)

I prefer momentary over temporary ...

Very good, you make a good argument. I will add an alias for layer-toggle to momentary-layer soon.

I do think hold would've been the best name because it's succinct, and I believe the average user would easily distinguish between tap-hold (action-action) and layer-hold (thing-action). There shouldn't be confusion since hold means the same thing in both terms. The only difference is the word's partner, no? Though I understand why you don't like it as much.

I actually think that the (potential) confusion that arises from this name points at a deeper issue with the different buttons that we are currently supporting. When I first defined them I wasn't entirely clear about what underlying semantics I was trying to cover, so I ended up making a bunch of buttons that do different things.

Looking at it now we seem to have mixed at least 2 different things:

• The patterns that buttons match against
• The actions that buttons perform

So tap-next, tap-hold, tap-next-release, multi-tap etc. are all essentially patterns that we are trying to detect, and looking at how the user 'maneuvers' through a particular pattern we decide on doing 1 of multiple actions. Then there are also layer-toggle, run-command (or something like that), layer-add, compose-key etc. These are all different actions that can be performed by KMonad. Ideally we wouldn't have countless different buttons, we'd have a few patterns, a few actions, and a way of defining buttons as a branching pattern, with each branch terminating in some action.

That, however, is a different story for a different time :)

EDIT: added a word I forgot.

[david-janssen]

Fixed in: edf2686