On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 07:11:01PM +0100, Richard Ulmer wrote: > Hi Jason, > Thanks for you response! >
hi! > > the actions do indeed match those in the command list. whether there are > > any undocumented ones, i don;t know. i suppose you'd have to go poking > > in the source. > > IMO users shouldn't have to go to the source code to compensate for > lacking documentation. > right. but someone at some point has to do the work if there is an issue. so by "you'd have to go poking" i really meant with a view to improving the page, rather than "all users should read the source to find this out". > Out of curiosity I did take a peek at the source and found this that > there are indeed undocumented actions: > - 'display-flag' is an undocumented alias for 'display-option' > - 'end' is an undocumented alias for 'goto-end' > - 'first-cmd' is an undocumented alias for 'firstcmd' > - 'flush-repaint' is an undocumented alias for 'repaint-flush' > - 'toggle-flag' is an undocumented alias for 'toggle-option' > - 'debug' is an entirely undocumented action > - 'forw-skip' is an entirely undocumented action > - 'shell' appears in the lesskey(1) man page but does not work > right. so if someone writes it up, future readers will not have to go poking. alternatively, there may a reason they are undocumented. > > the actions will roughly match those described in the > > less(1) COMMANDS section. so for example in less(1): > > > > d | ^D > > Scroll forward n lines ... > > > > and in lesskey(1): > > > > d forw-scroll > > ^D forw-scroll > > Doing this seems unnecessarily tedious to me. I'd much prefer to have > the actions explained in the lesskey(1) man page. Doing this still > doesn't explain everything; e.g. this still confuses me: > > s toggle-option o > > translates to > > s filename > Save the input to a file. This only works if the input is a > pipe, > not an ordinary file. > it confuses me too! i have no idea why they have used "toggle-option". but you can easily correlate "s" in lesskey with the documented "s" command in less. > > we could maybe make this clearer: > > > > #command > > \r forw-line > > ... > > > > to sth like this: > > > > #command action > > \r forw-line > > ... > > I'd prefer a separate list where each action is described with a little > more detail, than just having the example. > > > however we still import less. i'd want to make sure that's not stepping > > on anyone's toes to make local changes. > > I wanted to hear some second opinions first and make sure, that I didn't > miss anything. If I still think the documentation is lacking after that, > I could also suggest changes upstream. well you can file a bug report i suppose. but you could also look at how to improve things, write a diff, and submit it upstream. you will probably have a better chance if you do some of the work. jmc
