1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Control-Shift-X

Discussion in 'Support' started by Charles Dye, Dec 14, 2015.

  1. Charles Dye

    Charles Dye Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,312
    Likes Received:
    39
    Testing with the following command line:
    Code:
    echo %@lower[%_cwd]
    
    With the cursor anywhere on %_CWD, Control-Shift-X expands the variable as expected, and leaves the cursor at the end of the command line. A second press of Control-Shift-X (in hopes of evaluating the function) erases the command line....

    Using this command line:
    Code:
    echo %@left[5,The quick brown fox]
    
    Putting the cursor anywhere on %@LEFT[ and pressing Control-Shift-X wipes the command line and displays an error message.

    I think this hotkey works better with variables than with functions.
     
  2. vefatica

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,972
    Likes Received:
    30
    All Ctrl-Shift-X does here is print a box (unprintable). I do have "NormalKey=Ctrl-X". Does that also kill Ctrl-Shift-X?
     
  3. vefatica

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,972
    Likes Received:
    30
    Having gotten rid of "NormalKey=Ctrl-X". With the insertion point on the 'w' of %_cwd in
    Code:
    echo %@lower[%_cwd]
    Ctrl-X (no Shift) turns it into
    Code:
    echo v:\
    expanding the function as well as the (internal) variable. That's nothing like the help's
    As for Ctrl-Shift-X, it works as advertised when the insertion point is in %_cwd (unlike for Charles) and expands everything when its in @lower; I suppose that's correct. But as Charles observed, when it's in @lower in the command
    Code:
    echo %@lower[v:\]
    it erases the command line and leaves
    Code:
    TCC: Syntax error "@lower[v"
     
  4. Charles Dye

    Charles Dye Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,312
    Likes Received:
    39
    That is what I'm seeing. Variables work as expected, functions not so much. (Parsing out the start and end of a function is much more complicated!)
     

Share This Page