Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use pane_id instead of pane_index to identify a pane since the latter can change after a pane is created. #81

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

vitillo
Copy link

@vitillo vitillo commented Sep 10, 2013

By using pane_id instead of pane_index it is possible to open a pane through vimux and successively open/close new panes through tmux while continuing to send keys via vimux only to the original pane.

@benmills
Copy link
Collaborator

How far back does pane_id support go in tmux? I think this makes a lot of sense but I want to try and support tmux 1.6 and up.

@vitillo
Copy link
Author

vitillo commented Sep 12, 2013

A grep of the 1.6 sources seems to confirm that pane_id is supported. I didn't try to run it though.

@ersatzryan
Copy link
Contributor

this would also allow you to run commands in a pane which isn't visible, like if you have vim pane zoomed, correct?

@vitillo
Copy link
Author

vitillo commented Sep 23, 2013

That doesn't work; I did not investigate further but I guess it shouldn't be too difficult to add this feature once panes are identified through pane_id.

@ersatzryan
Copy link
Contributor

I haven't been able to send-keys to a pane that is hidden because of a zoomed pane, so I am not sure it it will be possible

Copy link

@stellarhoof stellarhoof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could salvage the variable naming changes since #110 covers the same functionality and more.

@alerque
Copy link
Member

alerque commented Feb 13, 2021

Thanks for this contribution @vitillo. I'm sorry you didn't get credited with it in the history quite right, but this did eventually get merged (albeit belatedly) via the refactored version of this in PR #110.

@alerque alerque closed this Feb 13, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants