Marek Bajon wrote:

Ok, i'll follow both X and MS "traditions" - in my company users were using
Client Access before, so they used to Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V.
I think that having internal clipboard as a file in user's home dir is also
good idea, because it will allow copy-paste in console version (tn5250
without xterm).

Copy/paste works already on the console. But if you're trying to implement some selection scheme that can't be currently done (like selection areas than span multiple lines but not the entire line) then I can see the need to have selection code.

IMO ctrl-c and ctrl-v are a horrible way to do something that is easily done with a simple middle button click. Why make the user do those extra keystrokes? Why make them think "now I'm copying, now I'm pasting"? But that is just my personal preference and doesn't mean that you shouldn't include that feature.

Sorry, I forgot that you guys don't know that I'm talking about selecting
rectangular region. This is much different from what xterm offers.

Yes, I see now. But don't break my precious middle button pastes standard unix copy!

Current (xterm based) copy-paste doesnt work if you copy multiple lines and
you have more than one field in a line. Droping data in not a good thing,
but it is necessary to paste sellection containing more than one field.
Imagine example:


We have two-line selection containing five editable fields, one display only
field (description01) and some blanks (showed as underscores). If you copy
this selection and try to paste it on another instance of xt5250, you will
get an error if you start pasting with cursor on description01, or you will
paste description01 to field01 if you place cursor in field01.

If we implement dropping data which cannot be pasted, we can successfuly
paste the selection if we start pasting with cursor at first character of
description01. Of course if starting position of cursor is different,
results are also different, but user should know what he's doing.

This copy-paste concept is not my "revelation" but it's how Client Access
does it.

I see what you are talking about. Sounds good as long as it doesn't break existing unix conventions. Definately post the code when you have it.

On a somewhat related note (but absolutely not targetted at you or anyone else specifically), I want to say that I don't think we should necessarily do things because client access does it or windows does or whoever. In general, as linux becomes more mainstream, there seems to be more and more pressure to do things the way that windows does. I read an article[1] recently that talks about this and raises some valid points. I don't want my system to be like windows or client access. But there are good things to be learned from there, like your selection idea. Let's choose to incorporate features based on their merits and not simply because someone else does it.

That said, I think your idea has plenty of merit, so please post the code. I hope that my comment above hasn't discouraged you or anyone else in any way. The decision on what gets included and what doesn't isn't mine to make anyway.


James Rich

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.