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

max_path_width option not available anymore #38

Open
linkarzu opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

max_path_width option not available anymore #38

linkarzu opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@linkarzu
Copy link
Contributor

linkarzu commented Nov 4, 2024

I used to limit the width of path buffer names like this before

vim.keymap.set("n", "<S-l>", function()
  local toggle = require("snipe").create_buffer_menu_toggler({
    -- Limit the width of path buffer names
    max_path_width = 1,
  })
  toggle()
end, { desc = "[P]Snipe" })

I'm not sure where to set this with the new keymap to open snipe

  "leath-dub/snipe.nvim",
  keys = {
    {
      "<S-l>",
      function()
        require("snipe").open_buffer_menu()
      end,
      desc = "Open Snipe buffer menu",
    },
  },

Did the name of that max_path_width option change or is it gone completely, how do I limit the path width?

@linkarzu
Copy link
Contributor Author

linkarzu commented Nov 4, 2024

Created a new issue, but found somoene else raised this in a closed issue here

@leath-dub
Copy link
Owner

This slipped my mind on the rewrite, ill have a way to restore this in a bit

@linkarzu
Copy link
Contributor Author

linkarzu commented Nov 5, 2024

Appreciate it very much!

@leath-dub
Copy link
Owner

Just an update on this, I have not gotten to it yet ( very busy in uni right now :( )

@leath-dub
Copy link
Owner

#41 What do people think about the feature I mention here. I think a lot of the "path shortening" and truncation is better handled by that proposed feature (not heavily tested yet)

@linkarzu
Copy link
Contributor Author

#41 What do people think about the feature I mention here. I think a lot of the "path shortening" and truncation is better handled by that proposed feature (not heavily tested yet)

Personally I am fine with whatever the approach is, as long as I can implement it, I'm good. Not sure what others think

@leath-dub
Copy link
Owner

#41 What do people think about the feature I mention here. I think a lot of the "path shortening" and truncation is better handled by that proposed feature (not heavily tested yet)

Personally I am fine with whatever the approach is, as long as I can implement it, I'm good. Not sure what others think

well I will add this feature anyway but for now the alternative layout should hopefully solve most peoples issues with readability. Its near end of semester for me so i am quite busy with uni.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants