Not sure where that idiom comes from or why strings work in some places
(auto-coercion?). I picked it up off some example apps. But
https://love2d.org/wiki/love.mouse.isDown says it should be an integer.
manifestation: clicking past end of a long, wrapping line containing
non-ASCII would cause the cursor to disappear rather than position past
end of screen line. Hitting enter would then throw an assertion with the
following stack trace:
Error: text.lua:381: bad argument #2 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil)
stack traceback:
[love "boot.lua"]:345: in function <[love "boot.lua"]:341>
[C]: in function 'sub'
text.lua:381: in function 'insert_return'
text.lua:179: in function 'keychord_pressed'
main.lua:495: in function 'keychord_pressed'
keychord.lua:10: in function <keychord.lua:5>
app.lua:34: in function <app.lua:25>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
cause: the click caused a call to Text.to_pos_on_line whose result was
not on a UTF-8 character boundary.
fix: make to_pos_on_line utf8-aware.
Any time I press a ctrl- chord LÖVE actually sees two key chords:
C-lctrl
C-... (the real one)
But it's not just that. There's also a lot in the codebase that's just
habit-based. I need more tests.
All signs so far seem to be that CPU is cheap for this application, but
memory is expensive. It's easy to get sluggish if the GC comes on.
After some experiments using https://github.com/yaukeywang/LuaMemorySnapshotDump,
one source of memory leaks is rendered fragments (https://love2d.org/wiki/Text
objects). I need to render text in approximately word-sized fragments to
mostly break lines more intelligently at word boundaries.
I've attached the files I used for my experiments (suffixed with a '.')
There's definitely still a leak in fragments. The longer I edit, the
more memory goes to them.
I've tried to keep the time period of the blinking similar to my
terminal.
Honestly I'm no longer sure if any of my experiments are showing a
statistically significant result. Let's see how it feels over a period
of time.
This still isn't ideal. On my Linux laptop for some reason the window
receives a signal to maximize itself soon after (but sometime after) the
program starts.
I'm being unprincipled at the moment between pos and x,y coordinates.
Whatever is more convenient. Perhaps a cleaner approach will come to me
over time.
It's still a bit simple-minded. Most software will keep the first bound
fixed and move the second. Lines currently has the bounds in a queue of
sorts. But I have a test to indicate the behavior that is definitely
desired. We'll see if we need it to get more complex.
Mouse stuff is pretty strenuous. For the first time I have to be careful
not to recompute too often. And I ran into a race condition for the
first time where resetting line.y within App.draw meant mouse clicks
were extremely unlikely to see line.y set.