Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

add num pad hotkey equivalents

Authored by Nescio on Oct 9 2020, 3:31 PM.



As pointed out on the forums, pressing / to select idle units only works with the / from the alphanumerical section, but not with the / from the numeric section (numpad).
Likewise, for selection groups, pressing 0 ... 9 from the numeric section is ignored.
This patch solves that by adding equivalents (for comparison, both plusses already work for zooming in.)

Test Plan

Verify it works, agree this is an improvement.

Diff Detail

rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

Nescio created this revision.Oct 9 2020, 3:31 PM
Nescio requested review of this revision.Oct 9 2020, 3:36 PM
Nescio added inline comments.Oct 9 2020, 3:41 PM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Perhaps this should be alphabetized?

Freagarach accepted this revision.Oct 27 2020, 8:23 PM
Freagarach added a subscriber: Freagarach.

Nice addition.

241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

I assume you're talking about the whole file? Yeah, but not sure it's worth the hassle ;)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Oct 27 2020, 8:23 PM
Freagarach removed a reviewer: Restricted Owners Package.Oct 27 2020, 8:24 PM
vladislavbelov added inline comments.
190 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Why Underscore? It's not minus.

241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Maybe we have to avoid that kind of alignment. It breaks SVN history for useless (imo) alignment.

Freagarach added inline comments.Oct 27 2020, 8:35 PM
190 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Same reason as Equals above, because people won't want to use the shift to zoom. As such it is consistent.

241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Fully agree.

Nescio added inline comments.Oct 28 2020, 9:25 AM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Lines 248 and 249 needed extra space. I did the other lines of this subsection too, for consistency; see other parts of this file for comparison.

Freagarach added inline comments.Oct 28 2020, 5:21 PM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Yes and @vladislavbelov and I argue that we should not use that kind of alignment (in the future).

Nescio added inline comments.Oct 28 2020, 6:07 PM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Yes, I understand, but that would be introducing inconsistency. Just have a look at other sections, e.g. lines 185 to 210 or 286 to 321.

wraitii accepted this revision.Oct 31 2020, 3:30 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Freagarach added inline comments.Nov 3 2020, 7:18 PM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

Using the proposed changes due to file consistency. If someone decides to clean this file in the future they might take this discussion in account.

vladislavbelov added inline comments.Nov 7 2020, 10:36 AM
241–251 ↗(On Diff #13614)

So, you see that the file already contains inconsistent lines. So my point is to move from the one consistency (with useless alignment) to another (without between-line alignment).