nsbgn

> @slakkenhuis Sorry for late reply. No need to apologize, thanks a lot for your time! > Do you think this is related to #694 somehow? It's definitely related (and...

Note for anyone else running into this issue: a temporary workaround would be to preprocess the Markdown with a simple `awk`: awk 'NR==1 && $0=="---" {x=1} NR>1 {if(x==1 && $0=="---")...

As has been noted before, a lot here is reminiscent of #34 and #81. Back then, I ended up agreeing with rvaiya: the inevitable visual latency and (perhaps less inevitable)...

I have also thought about this, for the same use case. Its absence hasn't caused me so much grief (yet) to have done a feature request but needless to say...

Even better, of course. Should have been my first thought. Nicely symmetrical. I do think the `...2` naming is a bit unsatisfying. `time_hold`/`hold_timer` for `timeout` and `time_tap`/`tap_timer` for `timeout2` would...

> Something like `timeout-hold` makes sense for `timeout` since the timer corresponds to the length of time the key is depressed, but `timeout2`'s timeout corresponds to the time _between_ successive...

I really like `timeout-idle`. It's by far the most intuitive option to me right now. `if-held` and `if-idle` are also intuitive, but not more or less so than the current...

Sure, I'll think when I get some time. Be warned that my involvement may backfire, as rvaiya's relative conservatism on this matter has proved pretty persuasive to me :P Anyway,...

> The problem with the name is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not the key is tapped. The sequences ` ` and ` `...

>As timeout-hold would ignore any interrupting key presses, none of the two actions would mirror the current timeout. While I haven't formed feelings on #278 yet (asap!) I do strongly...