| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Conundrum:
I want the app to provide some sample data for people to interact with.
However, I also want them to be able to delete it to make it their own.
BUT I'm not yet convinced the app should allow deletion in general.
Besides, deleting stuff robustly and reliably is a whole other level of
programming.
Solution:
Make people edit the app to clear the initial sample zettels.
This has the "beneficial" side-effect of getting them editing apps on
Teliva.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This will eliminate some spurious git diffs I keep having to clean up.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Still won't show up in view mode for now. Soon we'll be able to adjust
zettel dimensions.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The problem I'm running into is that apps might want to perform their
own editing. So I can't take up prime estate like the ctrl-e hotkey or a
menu name of 'edit'.
I'm still prioritizing rendering Teliva's edit and permissions menu. If
the window is too narrow the app's settings will be overwritten and
Teliva's hotkeys will be preferentially displayed. Seems safer.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
https://fosdem.org/2022/schedule/event/lastmilesandboxing
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also a minor edit in doc:main.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now we can be sure apps can't call `require`.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Just like with `require`, we don't we don't know how to sandbox it.
(Though we still have `require` because standard libraries outside apps
need it. I need to make sure apps can't invoke `require`..)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
How many levels of macros do we need. Also stop lying that we're using
Linux in BSD.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I've never tested with it, and it is likely broken after all my changes
to base Lua 5.1. Might as well be transparent about that.
If you care about this platform, please let me know:
http://akkartik.name/contact
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
https://merveilles.town/@akkartik/107742821323590471
What we have so far:
a representation (see 'zettels')
parent/child
next/prev sibling
(todo: misc cross-links)
ability to render zettels in multiple columns based on 'view_settings'
all zettels render with same size
alternate backgrounds between zettels for legibility
skip rendering duplicates (if we ever hit cycles)
a highlighted 'current zettel'
ability to move current zettel
by screen location (arrow keys)
by network structure (h/j/k/l)
Still can't edit zettels or load/save from/to disk.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It's not clear to me where my Linux gets strlcpy and strlcat from
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Submitted upstream at https://github.com/antirez/kilo/pull/81.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'd already dropped the variant without a filename. But even the variant
with a filename is very easy to use in a way that is confusing to use in
the presence of sandboxing:
* call io.lines()
* Sandboxing saves an error, io.lines() returns nil
* Caller (usually a loop) raises an error.
* We show the error and not the sandboxing failure.
* Worse, there's no way to adjust permissions from within Teliva,
because we can't ever get to that menu while there's an error.
Best solution I can come up with: encourage a separate step for
translating filename to file handle. That way it's more obvious that we
need to check for errors.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This will help people cross-correlate when the app performs specific
calls.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
To sandbox apps robustly, we're going to need to always work with
canonical absolute paths.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I fucking hate feature macros. Egregious discharge of our
division-of-labor-obsessed society. People should be able to introduce
names. People should be able to give up names to lower levels of
abstraction when they encounter conflicts.
Feature macros seem to exist[1] to support more than two levels of
abstraction. You try to build, one of your libraries fails to build
because of a conflict between it and one level down. You don't want to
modify this library. Just fucking https://catern.com/change_code.html
already. But no, I have to litter my code with feature macros even
though I just want the abstraction the original library provides.
[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/feature_test_macros.7.html
https://lwn.net/Articles/590381
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
https://github.com/keplerproject/luafilesystem
The new commander.tlv app demonstrates it working.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Forgot to include some hunks.
|