Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SPAM:XXXXXXXX] Re: [patch] Jump list not updated in certain circumstances

Expand Messages
  • Matt Wozniski
    ... I cast my vote for the behavior change instead... vim has had ... favor :keepjumps 10 over this undocumented feature . In general, I don t think it s a
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 12, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Lech Lorens wrote:
      > On 11-Apr-2010 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
      >>
      >> Lech Lorens wrote:
      >>
      >> > While
      >> > 10G
      >> > does add to the jump list,
      >> > :10
      >> > does not.
      >> >
      >> > I believe that both the methods of moving from line to line should be
      >> > consistent with regard to the jump list. This patch removes this
      >> > inconsistency by making :10 update the jump list.
      >> >
      >> > Additionally, this patch fixes the problem described by Jean Johner in
      >> > 5e8c1aa3-6f97-4d1e-ab09-c7e79a9909e2@... (the current
      >> > position is not added to the jump list when in insert mode <C-End> is pressed).
      >> > An analogical situation takes place when <C-Home> is pressed in insert mode.
      >> > This has also been taken care of.
      >>
      >> Did you verify that is compatible with vi?  Some of these
      >> inconsistencies are "traditional".  Sometimes it's useful to offer two
      >> ways to do the same thing, so that users and scripts can have the option
      >> of setting the jump or not.
      >
      > I tried verifying it with vi which I got from http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/.
      > Either I am missing something or the original vi does not include a jump
      > list implementation.
      > Regarding making it possible not to change the jump list - I think the
      > difference between 10G and :10 might indeed be desirable. In this case,
      > however, do you think it would be a good idea to mention the difference
      > in documentation? I attached a patch with a proposed modification.

      I cast my vote for the behavior change instead... vim has had
      :keepjumps for a long time; I'd expect that scripters are going to
      favor :keepjumps 10 over this undocumented "feature". In general, I
      don't think it's a good idea to keep vi compatibility when vim has an
      indisputably better way to do the job.

      ~Matt

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

      To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.