-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ansi escape codes #199
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
text/0000-add-ansi-escape-codes.md
Outdated
## Alternative to the rfc as a whole | ||
These escape codes can simply be printed independently of whatever is supported by functions on `ANSI`. | ||
Having them available on `ANSI` simply makes it so that users do not need to look the codes up themselves. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not understand this under the "Alternatives" section.
Co-authored-by: Sean T Allen <sean@seantallen.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left some comments mostly about use of default values, additional functionality, preventing errors, and my opinion on the direction I would prefer.
text/0000-add-ansi-escape-codes.md
Outdated
## Alternative to the rfc as a whole | ||
These escape codes can simply be printed independently of whatever is supported by functions on `ANSI`. | ||
Having them available on `ANSI` simply makes it so that users do not need to look the codes up themselves. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not understand this under the "Alternatives" section.
As discussed in the sync call, I'd like to request that the RFC include the method signatures for the new methods. |
- The `clear` function moves the cursor to the top left and then clears the screen. | ||
This may have been done to create the same result that this escape code gave on DOS. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- The `clear` function moves the cursor to the top left and then clears the screen. | |
This may have been done to create the same result that this escape code gave on DOS. | |
- The `clear` function moves the cursor to the top left and then clears the screen. | |
This may have been done to create the same result that this escape code gave on DOS. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If that extra newline is added, the next line would be split out into a separate paragraph instead of being attached to the bullet point about the functionality of the current clear function.
for the parameters. | ||
To enforce the safety of these functions using the type system, four primitives |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for the parameters. | |
To enforce the safety of these functions using the type system, four primitives | |
for the parameters. | |
To enforce the safety of these functions using the type system, four primitives |
During sync we discussed that we'd like to see more detailed information about function signnatures for new methods. |
Co-authored-by: Borja o'Cook <ergl@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Sean T Allen <sean@seantallen.com>
Co-authored-by: Sean T Allen <sean@seantallen.com>
Co-authored-by: Sean T Allen <sean@seantallen.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for splitting the modifications into a separate RFC! As well, thank you for adding example codes inline within the added escape codes list -- it is far easier to cross-reference the suggestions here with escape code tables now.
As this RFC stands I see no reason against these additions, although (as discussed on sync by Joe) I would like to see the API being suggested.
No description provided.