Skip to content
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

File manager commands improvements #1497

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alexander-clarke
Copy link
Contributor

@alexander-clarke alexander-clarke commented Jul 19, 2024

Previously the file manager commands were quite messy and some commands were not consistent so I cleaned it up.

Added an optional [select | cell] for all select commands, making them all consistent

Also enforced ordering of non numbered item, and then numbered item

Does have a slight breaking change in that
open <number>
has now moved too
open num <number>
And now instead we have the command
open {user.file_manager_files}

But this does mean we have consistency across open, select, and follow for both files and folders, which I think is worth the small breaking change.

Thoughts?

@@ -8,25 +8,25 @@ manager close: user.file_manager_hide_pickers()
manager refresh: user.file_manager_update_lists()
go <user.system_path>: user.file_manager_open_directory(system_path)
(go parent | daddy): user.file_manager_open_parent()
^follow {user.file_manager_directories}$:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this conflict with cursorless's "follow" command?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't believe so as I don't think anything implements cursorless and also the file manager tag
and if they did directories names are going to be different to most cursorless targets

But either way this isn't a new command, just a moved command in the same file

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I see that now. I misread the diff. Thanks for the clarification.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah the diff is a bit confusing as the old file is a bit confusing so had to move around a lot of the lines

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants