philippotto

I had the same problem (once in a blue moon, sublime did the correct behavior, but overall it was pretty unreliable).

As a solution, I wrote a small ST package [1] which produces the desired behavior. The package listens on a socket to "open-file-requests", which can be issued from the command line.

Via bash aliasing, you can invoke something like `lsub myfile.txt` which will then do what you want.

However, I'm not too sure about whether it works for git, as it's probably not blocking (I didn't test it for this usecase). Maybe it's still useful for someone, though.

[1] https://github.com/philippotto/LocalSubl

I guess, this is often not prioritized because the majority wouldn't use the configurable keybindings.

For what it's worth: I use AutoHotkey (on Windows) for configuring system wide shortcuts.

Official homepage: http://www.autohotkey.com/ My own ahk files: https://github.com/philippotto/shortcut-collection

Not a logical difference, yes. But there is a different connotation.

Do you have a link for more information about the next ThinkPad versions?

In the video it wasn't "a button to share some link" but it was a feature to search the social media and embed content in your "document".

And even if it supports simple sharing, I don't see why this would be "totally uninteresting [there]". It would probably be more convenient than uploading a powerpoint file somewhere or creating a separate website.

/edit: OK, there are two different mentionings of social media in the video. The first is about embedding content of social media and the second is about sharing the content you created.

Nice site! Just two notes:

- The third FAQ should probably read: "So I’ve signed up… what’s next?" since all the other questions are formulated from the visitor's POV.

- When scrolling to the very bottom, there is a yellow 1-px-line between the FAQ and "Stay in touch" (FF 29.0.1, Win8)

Where can I find the any-key?

You could make a first evaluation on the client so that the user gets quick feedback whether his solution is right. To validate that the user didn't cheat, you can make a second evaluation (server sided). The user shouldn't be forced to wait for the server sided evaluation. Instead he should be able to solve the next task immediately.

But nevertheless: Great idea with a lot of potential! Maybe you can give more detailed compile errors, if the user wrote incorrect code.