On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 08:37:29PM +0300, Mikhail wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 03:40:41PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling:
> > 
> > > In my opinion it would make sense to match less(1) behaviour and implement
> > > half-page scroll for ^D and ^U. Or only offer the full-page scroll bindings
> > > used by less(1), i.e. delete our ^D and ^U keybindings again.
> > 
> > The fundamental difference is that with a numeric prefix ^F/^B
> > scroll by screens, and ^D/^U scroll by lines.  It's only if there
> > is no numeric prefix that ^D/^U default to scrolling by half a
> > screen.  tog(1) does not support numeric prefixes.
> > 
> > I also think it's questionable to use 'd' and 'u' as synonyms for
> > ^D and ^U.  This is limited to less(1) and not present in vi(1),
> > and we may want to reserve these keys for future functionality.
> 
> In my opinion less-like keybindings for scrolling (I'm talking about
> 'u/d' here, as Ctrl-u/Ctrl-d patch has been accepted) can be useful at
> least for log and diff views, because their use most closely relate
> to a 'pager' (not an editor, as vi) - basically it requires a lot of
> scrolling, and probably we need to be close to 'less' as possible there,
> to not make users re-learn their habits.
> 
> Also I assume those views are mostly used ones.
> 
> Do you (or anyone, of course) have thoughts on possible future 'u/d'
> usage in log/diff views?

I would be fine with adding d/u as a half-page scroll in all views,
because these key bindings exist as such in more(1) and less(1).

We could assign another key than 'd' for showing the last modified date,
such as 'm'.

Also, if any existing key bindings eventually get in the way of something
else that seems better, we can always change things. There is no rule
which says that anything we decide today must remain this way forever.