Position WT with a control sequence?

[vefatica]

I recently doscovered CSI 8 ; <rows> ; <columns> t for sizing the WT window (preview 1.23). That works nicely. Thanks for that.

I read about CSI 3 ; x ; y t for positioning the window. That doesn't seem to work. Is it already there in another form or is there any plan to implement it?

Thanks.

[j4james]

The only window manipulation XTWINOPS that we currently support are 1 (de-iconify), 2 (iconify), 7 (refresh), 8 (resize), 14 (report text area size in pixels), 16 (report character cell size in pixels), and 18 (report text area size in characters).

I'm not aware of any plans to implement the move operation, and I don't think anyone's actually asked for that before. It's also the sort of thing that might need to be an option (likely disabled by default), because having your window moving randomly or hidden offscreen by a rogue application would be annoying.

[vefatica]

because having your window moving randomly or hidden offscreen by a rogue application would be annoying

Hmmm! You could say that about almost anything a rogue application might do. There are probably worse examples than moving the window offscreen. Moving the window is easy enough with the Win32 API. A control sequence would just be a convenience; for example, allowing the move to be scripted. No doubt, you could check that the parameters are reasonable.

[j4james]

Moving the window is easy enough with the Win32 API.

But any app that's calling Win32 APIs has already been installed on your system and is assumedly trusted. Escape sequences can be executed by applications in remote sessions which have no such approval. They could even just be triggered by typing a text file. It's a completely different level of risk.

[vefatica]

Point taken. Other control sequences can screw things up pretty badly.

I see that CSI 8 ; rows ; columns t has limits ... but they're slightly bigger than the desktop and don't take into consideration the taskbar. If you're going to leave that one in, maybe 0;0 could mean back to the startup size.

[j4james]

Other control sequences can screw things up pretty badly.

Agreed, but they tend to be confined to the content of the terminal, which can be reset (most terminals have a reset button or menu option for this). Sequences that effect the terminal itself can be more difficult to deal with. Personally I don't really care, but I know other people do, which is why I mentioned it.

maybe 0;0 could mean back to the startup size.

This actually already has a defined meaning - it's supposed to maximize the window. We don't yet handle that correctly, but there's an open issue for it (#4417).