Focus anomaly? (split from user command examples)

[nikos]

all the tokens go for the focused item (the one with the dotted rectangle around it), it doesn't matter if it is selected or not

[Kilmatead]

all the tokens go for the focused item... it doesn't matter if it is selected or not

$S does not behave this way (which is a bloody good thing, too).

How rude: if a file isn't selected, it isn't selected.  The focus should be irrelevant, and only for visual reference, no?  Or am I missing some magical properties of "Focus" which make it special?

Or, better yet, how does one destroy the focus if there's only one file in a folder?

[Mr.Pleasant]

the theory goes that both of these commands should do the same thing

I don't think that's correct. $S works on the selected file or files. $F and $N work on the focussed file. The difficult part comes with "$$" or ">>", which acts like a "for each selected file do ..." loop, as if each selected file is focussed when its turn has come.

And damn you Mr.unPleasant for making me experiment with $F and $N... I always used $S before you gave your examples and everything worked fine.

Good thing, dear Kilmatead! All new knowledge should - and will! - come with a fair amount of discomfort. You wouldn't learn otherwise. Besides, it gives me a warm and good feeling on this rainy sunday afternoon to know I was the one who helped you

[Kilmatead]

All new knowledge should - and will! - come with a fair amount of discomfort. You wouldn't learn otherwise. Besides, it gives me a warm and good feeling on this rainy sunday afternoon to know I was the one who helped you

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Appropriate for a Sunday.  And for once, it's not raining in this accursed green land.

However, my question stands... what is so great about focused-but-not-selected?  And how does one destroy focus?

[Mr.Pleasant]

And how does one destroy focus?

Simple, do not aim.

[Kilmatead]

That's the opposite if what me mum told me during potty-training.  You contradicting me mammy?

As x2 seems to like to highlight the first file in a given folder, and if there's only one file, how do I aim elsewhere when I have to actively deselect the file (if I want to execute the command)?

Normally, using $S I just ignore it.  (Yes, I realise my question is moot, given that I use $S anyway... but this makes me wonder what good focus is?  Seems a bloody hindrance to me.)

[Mr.Pleasant]

It is an a priori truth that if there is only one thing to focus on, you can not aim for anything else. If you want to rebell, there's only two options: go out meditating in your green land, like I elaborated on in my previous post, or start a war against reason. If you like the latter, just go into an empty folder and start commanding the focussed file in it. Like

Code: Select all

$ echo $F

You'll see the system shaking, mimicking a bland and senseless "$F". However, that's as far as it gets: your war ends in stalemate.
Both ways get you nowhere, though they can be fun.

If you stay within reason, you'll notice that whenever there is something to focus on, you can not look away from it, the best thing being only to choose what to focus on. But for that you need to have more than one file. The good thing, however, is that by definition there can only be one thing to focus on, regardless if you have something selected, whereas selections can hold more than one. This makes the focus viable for $F-commands, and, well, selections for $S-commands.

[Kilmatead]

I read Immanuel Kant in university.

Do.
Not.
Tempt.
Me.

As some of my less-logical posts elsewhere in this forum may suggest, I rebel against accepted logic (or try to) on a regular basis.

However, as much as I dislike it - I actually rather like your answer.  So I will accept it, with a certain begrudging equanimity of intent.

As Schopenhauer was to later ponder in the World as Will and Representation, Perception is the grounding element of reason - Lunatics were known by that name for their recorded behaviour of jumping up at the full moon, in an attempt to grasp it.  To them, taking the literal interpretation of "seeing is believing", this formed a logical basis for their actions.  Schopenhauer formed a significant type of professional Pessimism in the acceptance that each of our worlds is formed through our perception - there can only be singular and/or shared delusions - there can not be objective truth, however much man may demand it to be so.

Which is why I like your answer, and am quite prepared to smoke it like a tea leaf.  Even though I don't like it one bit.  

It is Sunday after all.  And there's Snooker on the telly.  My focus shall remain on Rebellion's Third Option.

But by God, the very poetry evinced by starting a war against reason.  I love it.  Thanks.

[Mr.Pleasant]

If it is the choice between singular and shared, then I welcome your contribution to the discussion. If it is all about delusion, then we might chase after the origin of the delusion, and finally fight over who is the real solipsist: you or me. You might think that only two answers are applicable, but besides 'I don't care' and 'you don't care', 'we don't care' could also be the case, only there is no way we would know, would we?
Consider that question not asked.

Lunatics were known by that name for their recorded behaviour of jumping up at the full moon, in an attempt to grasp it.  To them, taking the literal interpretation of "seeing is believing"...

Thank you for the diversion on the sunday. I'm still wondering if lunatics can only exist in the english language, where 'grasping' is embracing and understanding at the same time. At least a bit of understanding is needed in order to believe it.
I think I take my place behind the telly as well.

[Kilmatead]

During the French Revolution, on 10 November 1793, a Goddess of Reason was proclaimed by the French Convention at the suggestion of Chaumette. As personification for the goddess, Thérèse Momoro, wife of the printer Antoine-François Momoro, was chosen. The goddess was celebrated in Notre Dame de Paris (she was put on the high altar in the Cathedral).

It is with no small irony that the Gods of Control and Forum Reason saw fit to introduce an element of schizophrenia to the thread.

Indeed, from this Lunatic's perception (in the epistemological sense), I could be forgiven for wondering how a little philosophy on the subject of Explorer Focus (spawned in heart) by the anomalous behaviour of User Command tokens, does not constitute a contribution to the previous thread?

Now, say, if I wanted to rant and rave on the off-topic mystical implications of "8,589 billion gigabytes" which I may have done elsewhere, I can enjoy the freedom of being the village idiot - tolerated on the off chance that an a priori Moon requires Grasping with a posteriori effort.

As the kindred Mr.unPleasant was obviously allowed a brief holiday from his padded cell in the Hague to help explain the semantic distinction of Focused vs. Selected, this is actually rather important for how User Command tokens are interpreted - or, as I would have it, mis-interpreted by common sense.

For instance, might someone explain the reasoning behind how clinging to focus works if using:

Code: Select all

> "C:\Program Files\zabkat\xplorer2\editor2_64.exe" "$N"

...one selects two files (<A> and <B>) using the MMB, then decides to change one's mind and deselect the first <A>, leaving only <B> selected, as is logical.  So one invokes the above user command and what happens?

Irrationally, <A> is actually loaded into editor2, NOT <B> (the obviously selected file), merely because someone decided that the last "touched" file should be considered the focus.  Worse, due to the single-argument nature of $N/$F, <B> is ignored altogether.  Look at it this way, I explicitly focused on <A> to deselect it - why should a user command token subsequently consider that file to have priority over the Selected file?

I admitted my original point was somewhat moot when only one file existed in the folder (and accepted the idea of meditation in a green land as a viable alternative) - but this is actually an example of an operational anomaly, not a solipsism in a vacuum.

It is with no small irony that the Gods of Reason saw fit to introduce an element of schizophrenia to the thread.

I'll reiterate the query: What bloody good is Focus over Selected?

* (The remark about Mr.Pleasant was obviously meant in jest, no edicts of Interpol were scanned as evidence before publication.  Which is not to say they don't exist. )

** (I hope the Gods of Reason realise how difficult it is to focus on this topic at 8AM on a Monday morning.  I was willing to let to be... but now, a mere War on Reason hath become a Crusade.)

[nikos]

that must be death by scholasticism!
look most normal people never get to know the difference between selection and focus, it's the last item they clicked on. For special types it unambiguously decides on "which one of the multiple selected items is $N"?

[Kilmatead]

For special types it unambiguously decides on "which one of the multiple selected items is $N"?

Well, that's just the point, isn't it?  In this case it decides $N is actually the selected file, which is the exact opposite of reality.

Who knew a silly dotted line could betray my soul?  For instance, toolbar icons such as Copy or Delete, or what-have you, do NOT highlight merely on the strength of an unselected dotted line - why should user-command tokens?

A valid discrepancy, no?

(Death by Scholasticism is my new motto.)

[Kilmatead]

most normal people never get to know the difference between selection and focus

Which begs the question yet again.

It occurs to me that requesting a registry option to disable Focus altogether (as a severe anti-disambiguation) might be a step beyond the pale... but the same thought occurs that I highlighted a bug in $S, as it ignores (undocumented) the otherwise flawed (but consistent behaviour) of other tokens.  For God's sake, don't fix this.

Does anyone actually like this tyranny of imposed auto-focus?

(But a registry option would be suitably avant-garde, nonetheless.)

[nikos]

can you tell me in under 5000 words what is wrong with having a focus? An actual example how you get confused?

[Kilmatead]

can you tell me in under 5000 words what is wrong with having a focus? An actual example how you get confused?

My example of (rather seriously) ambiguous behaviour above (deselect file <A> and it becomes, de facto, the selection) isn't good enough?

Guess you're not a fan of Proust, huh?  Just because an MIT blog agrees with you, doesn't mean it's true.

Evidently, our language faculty is serial, not parallel, and it has limited computational capacity. If you jam our language faculty by supplying too many words, the listener or reader won’t have anything left with which to think. Fast-talking salespeople know this.