| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
... | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We just need to ensure textinput events never make use of selection
state.
All tests are passing, but I'm aware of a couple of issues. But now we
can keep all the special cases in one place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bugfix: we want selections to persist even when we lift up the shift
key.
This requires hoisting some code inside every case inside the whole
keypress hierarchy, to ensure we never clear selections before
textinput events can handle them.
Current cross-cutting concerns we're explicitly scattering code for.
- autosave
- undo
- selection management
|
|
|
|
| |
The test harness now also mimics real usage more precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
To reproduce:
click to position cursor at end of a line
hit enter
press any key
before:
newline got erased and key got added to previous line
now:
newline is preserved
The new test checks a generalization of this.
|
|
|
|
| |
Let's just make all the utf8.offset calculations more defensive.
|
|
|
|
| |
I just noticed a few characters missing from one of my notes.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It might reduce wear and tear on disk, and losing 3 seconds of data
doesn't feel catastrophic (short of a C-z rampage).
Thanks to the love2d.org community for the suggestion:
https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=93173
|
|
|
|
| |
Also ensure we autosave.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not sure where that idiom comes from or why strings work in some places
(auto-coercion?). I picked it up off some example apps. But
https://love2d.org/wiki/love.mouse.isDown says it should be an integer.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
manifestation: clicking past end of a long, wrapping line containing
non-ASCII would cause the cursor to disappear rather than position past
end of screen line. Hitting enter would then throw an assertion with the
following stack trace:
Error: text.lua:381: bad argument #2 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil)
stack traceback:
[love "boot.lua"]:345: in function <[love "boot.lua"]:341>
[C]: in function 'sub'
text.lua:381: in function 'insert_return'
text.lua:179: in function 'keychord_pressed'
main.lua:495: in function 'keychord_pressed'
keychord.lua:10: in function <keychord.lua:5>
app.lua:34: in function <app.lua:25>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
cause: the click caused a call to Text.to_pos_on_line whose result was
not on a UTF-8 character boundary.
fix: make to_pos_on_line utf8-aware.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If I'd had this stuff in my test harness earlier, two recent commits
would have failed tests and given me early warning:
ff88238ff1
ff88a2a927
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Any time I press a ctrl- chord LÖVE actually sees two key chords:
C-lctrl
C-... (the real one)
But it's not just that. There's also a lot in the codebase that's just
habit-based. I need more tests.
|
|
|
|
| |
I messed up a function call in commit 391d764e13.
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes part of #4, but not the BSOD.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Things seem to be working..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We don't need to perform the scroll calculations after inserting every
single character from the clipboard.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
But this is too slow.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Now we just disallow that entirely.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All signs so far seem to be that CPU is cheap for this application, but
memory is expensive. It's easy to get sluggish if the GC comes on.
After some experiments using https://github.com/yaukeywang/LuaMemorySnapshotDump,
one source of memory leaks is rendered fragments (https://love2d.org/wiki/Text
objects). I need to render text in approximately word-sized fragments to
mostly break lines more intelligently at word boundaries.
I've attached the files I used for my experiments (suffixed with a '.')
There's definitely still a leak in fragments. The longer I edit, the
more memory goes to them.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The hard part here is keeping click-drag selection working (without
pressing and holding shift).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I've tried to keep the time period of the blinking similar to my
terminal.
Honestly I'm no longer sure if any of my experiments are showing a
statistically significant result. Let's see how it feels over a period
of time.
|
|
|
|
| |
This seems to speed up copy! What does it slow down?
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks John Blommers for the report!
|
|
|
|
| |
Hopefully there won't be too many others.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This still isn't ideal. On my Linux laptop for some reason the window
receives a signal to maximize itself soon after (but sometime after) the
program starts.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm being unprincipled at the moment between pos and x,y coordinates.
Whatever is more convenient. Perhaps a cleaner approach will come to me
over time.
|