this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
641 points (97.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
32560 readers
337 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One of the things that really, really annoys me when I get lazy and use a pre-bundled set of (neo)vim plugins is how every one of them uses mouse functionality. I only use the mouse to copy/paste from the terminal to system clipboard. I don't want it hijacking him and entering visual mode.
does this suggest that copy/paste from the terminal is broken by design and we need find a better way?
I like your thinking. Give me Firefox with a TUI and POSIX shell i/o redirection support.
Vim has a better way, it's called
:set clipboard=unnamedplus(alternatively, one can bind anything else to copy/paste to/from system cliboards). Not sure why would one use a mouse for this, honestlyI think if you want to copy a specific selection to a mouse-based, different program then it makes sense to use the mouse for precision selection.
Might I suggest a common set of keybinds... maybe C for copy, and v for vaste... maybe use ctrl as well?
Ctrl is already used my a large number of commands in POSIX shells. This is one of the places that I really like Apple's solution (despite really not liking most of what they do). Super/GUI/Command + c/v is a great improvement in the terminal.
pee bundled neovim add-ons might as well use helix.
You know, if I can use vim bindings and regex, I might try it out. I tend to try to keep my neovim plugins fairly lightweight when I config myself. Not being electron is a big plus.
yah helix has vim motions.
their search mode and select is a bit different but once you do the tutorial it makes complete sense why youd want to scope your regex replace.
What stopped me personally was reading they use a different order of operations, so to say. Where vim goes action + range, helix goes (or at least used to go) range + action (like replacing
ci"byi"c). Mb that makes more sense for them, but I'm too lazy to re-learn that for no particular reason