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

Re: "." fails to repeat the last executed operator with ":normal v"

Expand Messages
  • Kana Natsuno
    ... Don t you have any idea about this problem? -- -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:35:08 PM UTC+9, Kana Natsuno wrote:
      > I often define my own text objects. But I noticed that some of them are
      > not correctly repeatable with the "." command. I investigated the cause
      > of the problem, and found a strange behavior about repeating an operator
      > which is executed with a ":" command as a motion.
      >
      > If an operator is executed with a ":" command and the ":" command
      > doesn't invoke Visual mode via :normal, the whole operation can be
      > repeated correctly with the "." command. In this case, the ":" command
      > is stored into the redo buffer as is. For example:
      >
      > [...]

      Don't you have any idea about this problem?

      --
      --
      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

      ---
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • glts
      Here are the contents of the redo buffer when . is pressed, for both cases (I obtained these with get_inserted()): 1. d:call Select() n 2. vd So, in the
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are the contents of the redo buffer when "." is pressed, for both
        cases (I obtained these with get_inserted()):

        1. "d:call Select()\n"
        2. "vd"

        So, in the first case when we enter "dfoo", "foo" is mapped and put
        verbatim in the redo buffer.

        In the second case, "dfoo" is somehow translated to "vd". The effect is
        the same as for "1vd", meaning: make a Visual selection with the same
        size as the previous one, then delete it.

        This is strange. I don't understand how the second case works yet but I
        will try to find out more when I have time.

        glts

        --
        --
        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

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
      • glts
        ... The repeat.vim plugin was created to solve this problem but it doesn t work for omaps neither. I don t know if you saw it but there is some discussion
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 17, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Saturday, March 16, 2013 6:37:18 AM UTC+1, Kana Natsuno wrote:
          > Don't you have any idea about this problem?

          On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:06:50 PM UTC+1, glts wrote:
          > Here are the contents of the redo buffer when ...

          The "repeat.vim" plugin was created to solve this problem but it doesn't
          work for omaps neither. I don't know if you saw it but there is some
          discussion here:

          https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8

          In my opinion, the redo buffer should be the same in both of your
          examples, namely "d:call Select()\n". But since there is only one redo
          buffer and you can call functions/:normal recursively, there's always
          the chance of it being overwritten.

          Folks, would it make sense to add another "top-level" redo buffer? This
          would be left untouched by nested :normal commands.

          --
          --
          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

          ---
          You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
          To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
        • Kana Natsuno
          ... I already saw the discussion, because several people asked me about repeatability of custom text objects implemented with vim-textobj-user and most of them
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:03 PM, glts wrote:
            > The "repeat.vim" plugin was created to solve this problem but it doesn't
            > work for omaps neither. I don't know if you saw it but there is some
            > discussion here:
            >
            > https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8

            I already saw the discussion, because several people asked me about
            repeatability of custom text objects implemented with vim-textobj-user
            and most of them also told me the link.

            But I don't believe that repeat.vim is a right solution for the problem.
            repeat.vim is to enable repeatability for custom operators which take
            extra arguments such as a {target} for ys{motion}{target} provided by
            surround.vim. Repeatability of custom motions and custom text objects
            should be covered by another layer. Especially, the "solution" posted
            in the discussion

            https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8#issuecomment-13951082

            does not work with custom operators using repeat.vim.


            > In my opinion, the redo buffer should be the same in both of your
            > examples, namely "d:call Select()\n". But since there is only one redo
            > buffer and you can call functions/:normal recursively, there's always
            > the chance of it being overwritten.
            >
            > Folks, would it make sense to add another "top-level" redo buffer? This
            > would be left untouched by nested :normal commands.

            Thank you for the summary. It seems to be reasonable for me, but there
            might be drawbacks about compatibility or difficulty for further
            maintenance. I'd like to hear others' opinions.

            --
            --
            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

            ---
            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
          • glts
            ... At this point I believe this is a bug. Consider the following commands, typed in normal mode: (1) d:call setpos( . ,[0,2,5,0]) (2) d:normal! e (3)
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:35:08 PM UTC+1, Kana Natsuno wrote:
              > I often define my own text objects. But I noticed that some of them are
              > not correctly repeatable with the "." command. I investigated the cause
              > of the problem, and found a strange behavior about repeating an operator
              > which is executed with a ":" command as a motion.
              > ...

              At this point I believe this is a bug. Consider the following commands,
              typed in normal mode:

              (1) d:call setpos(".",[0,2,5,0])
              (2) d:normal! e
              (3) dv:normal! viw
              (4) d:normal! viw

              Commands (1) to (3) work exactly as expected: "delete to line 2 column
              5; to the end of the word; the inner word". And they are repeatable with
              the dot command, because they are put in the redo buffer exactly as
              typed.

              Command (4) works as expected, but it isn't repeatable because the
              command isn't correctly put in the redo buffer.

              This is unfortunate. In Operator-pending mode, selecting something in
              Visual mode is special: Like Kana said, it is the only way to define
              complex text objects (see :h omap-info). So this is an issue that needs
              fixing.

              --
              --
              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

              ---
              You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
              To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
            • Sung Pae
              ... While I do hope Vim will gain native support for repeating custom commands with `.`, I would like to point out that the posted solution, while hackish,
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:08:29AM -0700, Kana Natsuno wrote:

                > Especially, the "solution" posted in the discussion
                >
                > https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8#issuecomment-13951082
                >
                > does not work with custom operators using repeat.vim.

                While I do hope Vim will gain native support for repeating custom
                commands with `.`, I would like to point out that the posted solution,
                while hackish, indeed does work with custom operators, custom motions,
                and even in combination.

                I am close to releasing a plugin with 18 custom text objects and cursor
                motions for S-Expressions, and I have a satisfactory¹ implementation of
                repeatable operator-pending commands here:

                https://github.com/guns/vim-sexp/blob/90cc836e9c83d4b96c6c5e971febc33a5d73f7e7/plugin/sexp.vim#L103..L132

                The motion mappings created by the above function work with both native
                operators and with the custom operators provided by two other plugins by
                Tim Pope: vim-surround and vim-commentary. I don't know offhand if Tim
                had to put in any extra work to make this possible, but I don't believe
                so.

                Sung Pae

                ¹ Not perfect. The `c` command is special cased for now and the final
                position of the cursor is sometimes different than with native
                operations, but I think both issues could be resolved with some
                ingenuity.

                --
                --
                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

                ---
                You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
              • Sung Pae
                ... Apologies for replying to myself here, but I wish to emphasize that I am in _complete_ agreement with Kana Natsuno about his proposal. This should
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:21:42PM -0500, Sung Pae wrote:
                  > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:08:29AM -0700, Kana Natsuno wrote:
                  >
                  > > Especially, the "solution" posted in the discussion
                  > >
                  > > https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8#issuecomment-13951082
                  > >
                  > > does not work with custom operators using repeat.vim.
                  >
                  > While I do hope Vim will gain native support for repeating custom
                  > commands with `.`

                  Apologies for replying to myself here, but I wish to emphasize that I
                  am in _complete_ agreement with Kana Natsuno about his proposal. This
                  should optimally "just work" without any of the hackery I've posted.

                  Operators + cursor motions are one of the pillars of the Vim editing
                  philosophy and fixing this issue would definitely encourage people to
                  create their own innovative FileType-specific motions.

                  I would be happy to supply a patch if it is acknowledged as a bug, and
                  if Kana is not already in the midst of a solution.

                  Sung Pae

                  --
                  --
                  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

                  ---
                  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                • glts
                  ... I don t know if you saw my other post (Google groups separated it for some reason) but this has to be a bug. Compare: dv:norm! viw d:norm! viw The first
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:52:35 PM UTC+1, Sung Pae wrote:
                    > Apologies for replying to myself here, but I wish to emphasize that I
                    > am in _complete_ agreement with Kana Natsuno about his proposal. This
                    > should optimally "just work" without any of the hackery I've posted.
                    >
                    > Operators + cursor motions are one of the pillars of the Vim editing
                    > philosophy and fixing this issue would definitely encourage people to
                    > create their own innovative FileType-specific motions.
                    >
                    > I would be happy to supply a patch if it is acknowledged as a bug, and
                    > if Kana is not already in the midst of a solution.

                    I don't know if you saw my other post (Google groups separated it for
                    some reason) but this has to be a bug. Compare:

                    dv:norm! viw
                    d:norm! viw

                    The first one is put into the redo buffer as is, the second one isn't
                    (the redo buffer contains "vd" in the second case). The only difference
                    is the motion force ("v") after the operator.

                    Looking at the source, I get the impression that this is simply an issue
                    of an improperly defined condition. I have a working two-line patch
                    which fixes this but I'd rather give it a little more time.

                    --
                    --
                    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

                    ---
                    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                  • Kana Natsuno
                    ... No. The solution does not work in every situation, especially for a combination of a custom operator and a custom text object that use repeat.vim. ...
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Sung Pae wrote:
                      > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:08:29AM -0700, Kana Natsuno wrote:
                      >
                      >> Especially, the "solution" posted in the discussion
                      >>
                      >> https://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat/issues/8#issuecomment-13951082
                      >>
                      >> does not work with custom operators using repeat.vim.
                      >
                      > While I do hope Vim will gain native support for repeating custom
                      > commands with `.`, I would like to point out that the posted solution,
                      > while hackish, indeed does work with custom operators, custom motions,
                      > and even in combination.

                      No. The "solution" does not work in every situation, especially for
                      a combination of a custom operator and a custom text object that use
                      repeat.vim.


                      > I am close to releasing a plugin with 18 custom text objects and cursor
                      > motions for S-Expressions, and I have a satisfactory¹ implementation of
                      > repeatable operator-pending commands here:
                      >
                      > https://github.com/guns/vim-sexp/blob/90cc836e9c83d4b96c6c5e971febc33a5d73f7e7/plugin/sexp.vim#L103..L132
                      >
                      > The motion mappings created by the above function work with both native
                      > operators and with the custom operators provided by two other plugins by
                      > Tim Pope: vim-surround and vim-commentary.

                      Really? Suppose that we invoke a new Vim process with the following
                      environment:

                      ------------------------------------------------------------

                      $ git clone git://github.com/tpope/vim-repeat.git
                      $ cd vim-repeat
                      $ git checkout a81bef76031ca1c71766b516417480caeb01c932
                      $ cd ..
                      $ git clone git://github.com/guns/vim-sexp.git
                      $ cd vim-surround
                      $ git checkout 90cc836e9c83d4b96c6c5e971febc33a5d73f7e7
                      $ cd ..
                      $ git clone git://github.com/tpope/vim-surround.git
                      $ cd vim-surround
                      $ git checkout 02199ea0080d744ec76b79d74ce56d51d25cf7ae
                      $ cd ..
                      $ vim -u NONE -i NONE -N -c "
                      syntax enable |
                      set runtimepath+=$PWD/vim-repeat,$PWD/vim-sexp,$PWD/vim-surround |
                      runtime! plugin/sexp.vim plugin/surround.vim
                      "

                      ------------------------------------------------------------

                      Then `:setfiletype scheme` and paste the following snippet:

                      (let ((a b) (c d))
                      code)
                      (let ((e f)) more-code)

                      Suppose that we do

                      (1) `1ggf(` (move the cursor the second "(" in the first line)
                      (2) `ysabr` (surround the "(...)" block with "[" and "]"),
                      (3) `3ggf(` (move the cursor the second "(" in the third line)
                      (4) `.` (repeat (2), the last edit command)

                      We'll get the following result:

                      (let [((a b) (c d))]
                      code)
                      (let [((e f))] more-code)

                      If we do the following steps on the same snippet:

                      (1) `1ggf(`
                      (2) `ysafr` (surround the current form with "[" and "]"),
                      (3) `3ggf(`
                      (4) `.`

                      We'll get the following result:

                      (let [((a b) (c d))]
                      code)
                      (let [((e f)) more-]code)

                      That's why I don't believe that the "solution" is not a right way to
                      solve this problem. It does not provide repeatability for every
                      combination.

                      --
                      --
                      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

                      ---
                      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                    • Sung Pae
                      ... Yes, this combination does fail due to the implementation of the `ys` operator. This can be ameliorated, but it would not be pretty. Other combinations do
                      Message 10 of 19 , Mar 19, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:39:11PM -0700, Kana Natsuno wrote:

                        > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Sung Pae wrote:
                        >
                        > > The motion mappings created by the above function work with both
                        > > native operators and with the custom operators provided by two other
                        > > plugins by Tim Pope: vim-surround and vim-commentary.
                        >
                        > Really? Suppose that we invoke a new Vim process with the following
                        > environment:
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------

                        Yes, this combination does fail due to the implementation of the `ys`
                        operator. This can be ameliorated, but it would not be pretty.

                        Other combinations do not fail (like the `gc` vim-commentary operator
                        with the `af` text object), and the native operators with custom text
                        objects work well.

                        Again, this is a hack against the constraints of the bug you have
                        pointed out, which I am very much in favor of seeing fixed. Do you have
                        a patch to supply to the list, or should I look into it?

                        Sung Pae

                        --
                        --
                        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

                        ---
                        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                      • Yukihiro Nakadaira
                        Perhaps this works? onoremap foo : call Select() function! Select() execute normal! viw endfunction -- Yukihiro Nakadaira -
                        Message 11 of 19 , Mar 20, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Perhaps this works?

                          onoremap foo :<C-u>call Select()<CR>
                          function! Select()
                            execute "normal! viw\<Esc>"
                          endfunction

                          --
                          Yukihiro Nakadaira - yukihiro.nakadaira@...

                          --
                          --
                          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
                           
                          ---
                          You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                          To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                           
                           
                        • Yukihiro Nakadaira
                          ... Oops, this doesn t work. Sorry for noise. -- -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you
                          Message 12 of 19 , Mar 20, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:49:19 PM UTC+9, Yukihiro Nakadaira wrote:
                            > Perhaps this works?
                            >
                            > onoremap foo :<C-u>call Select()<CR>
                            > function! Select()
                            >   execute "normal! viw\<Esc>"
                            > endfunction

                            Oops, this doesn't work. Sorry for noise.

                            --
                            --
                            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

                            ---
                            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                          • glts
                            Hi ... I spent some time looking into this. Attached is a first *proposal* for a patch for the current Vim version 7.3.875, which -- I believe -- fixes this.
                            Message 13 of 19 , Mar 23, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi

                              On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:07:53 AM UTC+1, Sung Pae wrote:
                              > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:39:11PM -0700, Kana Natsuno wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Sung Pae wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > > The motion mappings created by the above function work with both
                              >
                              > > > native operators and with the custom operators provided by two other
                              >
                              > > > plugins by Tim Pope: vim-surround and vim-commentary.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Really? Suppose that we invoke a new Vim process with the following
                              >
                              > > environment:
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > ------------------------------------------------------------
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yes, this combination does fail due to the implementation of the `ys`
                              >
                              > operator. This can be ameliorated, but it would not be pretty.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Other combinations do not fail (like the `gc` vim-commentary operator
                              >
                              > with the `af` text object), and the native operators with custom text
                              >
                              > objects work well.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Again, this is a hack against the constraints of the bug you have
                              >
                              > pointed out, which I am very much in favor of seeing fixed. Do you have
                              >
                              > a patch to supply to the list, or should I look into it?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Sung Pae

                              I spent some time looking into this. Attached is a first *proposal* for
                              a patch for the current Vim version 7.3.875, which -- I believe -- fixes
                              this.

                              However, the code surrounding Visual mode and operators is rather ...
                              tricky to say the least, so I urge you to look it over carefully, and
                              comment on whether you think it is correct or how it could be improved.

                              There has not been any response on the status of this issue. Operators
                              and text objects are two of the major advantages Vim has over other
                              editors. So I believe it is essential to let users leverage the full
                              power of their own custom operators and text objects by making them
                              repeatable with the dot command.

                              David Bürgin

                              --
                              --
                              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

                              ---
                              You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                              To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                            • Sung Pae
                              ... I can confirm it works for simple repeats of custom motions with `d` and `c` operators, as well the custom `ys` operator that Kana showed was problematic.
                              Message 14 of 19 , Mar 23, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:56:58AM -0700, glts wrote:

                                > I spent some time looking into this. Attached is a first *proposal*
                                > for a patch for the current Vim version 7.3.875, which -- I believe --
                                > fixes this.

                                I can confirm it works for simple repeats of custom motions with `d` and
                                `c` operators, as well the custom `ys` operator that Kana showed was
                                problematic.

                                > However, the code surrounding Visual mode and operators is rather ...
                                > tricky to say the least, so I urge you to look it over carefully,
                                > and comment on whether you think it is correct or how it could be
                                > improved.

                                I see two issues on first glance:

                                * Counts are not repeated; d2x (x being a custom motion) repeats as
                                dx only
                                * Making a visual selection with a custom operator clobbers the redo

                                It's promising that your small patch enables so much of the desired
                                functionality. Please continue!

                                > There has not been any response on the status of this issue. Operators
                                > and text objects are two of the major advantages Vim has over other
                                > editors. So I believe it is essential to let users leverage the full
                                > power of their own custom operators and text objects by making them
                                > repeatable with the dot command.

                                Perhaps we will be able to convince Bram if the solution is clean and
                                unobtrusive.

                                Sung Pae

                                --
                                --
                                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

                                ---
                                You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                                To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                                For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                              • glts
                                Sung Pae, thank you for your feedback. ... Yes, but this is due to another bug. My patch does not affect this. ... If you try the normal mode mapping, e.g.
                                Message 15 of 19 , Mar 24, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sung Pae, thank you for your feedback.

                                  On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Sung Pae <self@...> wrote:
                                  > I see two issues on first glance:
                                  >
                                  > * Counts are not repeated; d2x (x being a custom motion) repeats as
                                  > dx only

                                  Yes, but this is due to another bug. My patch does not affect this.

                                  The v:count variables are treated differently in omaps. Compare:

                                  :nnoremap <silent> x :<C-U>exe "norm! d".v:count1."e"<CR>
                                  :onoremap <silent> x :<C-U>exe "norm! ".v:count1."e"<CR>

                                  If you try the normal mode mapping, e.g. "2x", then the dot command will
                                  have the same effect as "2x". You can also override the count by giving
                                  a count to the dot command, e.g. "3.". This is the expected behaviour.

                                  The omap on the other hand doesn't work like that. Try "d2x" and then
                                  repeat with the dot command: The original count is not used. You have to
                                  use "2." to get the same as with "d2x".

                                  This is a different issue, and I'd rather put it off for the moment.

                                  > * Making a visual selection with a custom operator clobbers the redo

                                  Can you give an example? I don't see the problem.

                                  --
                                  --
                                  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

                                  ---
                                  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                                  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                                  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                • Sung Pae
                                  ... Ah yes, you re totally correct. I remember now that I had to work around that myself by saving v:count to a buffer-local variable on omap invocation, then
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Mar 24, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 06:43:47PM +0100, glts wrote:

                                    > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Sung Pae <self@...> wrote:
                                    > > I see two issues on first glance:
                                    > >
                                    > > * Counts are not repeated; d2x (x being a custom motion) repeats as
                                    > > dx only
                                    >
                                    > Yes, but this is due to another bug. My patch does not affect this.
                                    >
                                    > The v:count variables are treated differently in omaps. Compare:

                                    Ah yes, you're totally correct. I remember now that I had to work
                                    around that myself by saving v:count to a buffer-local variable on omap
                                    invocation, then string-replace the v:count variable in the omap rhs
                                    with the buffer-local "b:_count", so that the cached value would be used
                                    on repeat. It was very nasty, but it worked.

                                    > This is a different issue, and I'd rather put it off for the moment.

                                    Yes, I imagine a new count variable needs to be created to handle omaps.

                                    > > * Making a visual selection with a custom operator clobbers the redo
                                    >
                                    > Can you give an example? I don't see the problem.

                                    I apologize, that was a bit vague.

                                    Let's create a simple (and incomplete) custom motion:

                                    function! SelectInCaps()
                                    let [bl, bc] = searchpos('\u', 'cbW')
                                    let [el, ec] = searchpos('.\u\ze', 'W')
                                    call setpos("'<", [0, bl, bc, 0])
                                    call setpos("'>", [0, el, ec, 0])
                                    normal! gv
                                    endfunction

                                    Then map it to both visual and operator-pending modes:

                                    vmap ic :<C-U>call SelectInCaps()<CR>
                                    omap ic :<C-U>call SelectInCaps()<CR>

                                    Repeating the command dic with the . command works now with your patch:

                                    Foo|BarBazQuux
                                    Foo|BazQuux " dic
                                    Foo|Quuz " .

                                    However, if we invoke vic after running dic, the . command no longer has
                                    any affect:

                                    Foo|BarBazQuux
                                    Foo|BazQuux " dic
                                    Foo|BazQuux " vic<Esc>
                                    Foo|BazQuux " .

                                    This is not true of the builtin motions like `aw`; visual commands do
                                    not clobber the repeat buffer (or however it may work).

                                    Thank you for your work on this!

                                    Sung Pae

                                    --
                                    --
                                    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

                                    ---
                                    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                                    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                  • glts
                                    ... Yes, sorry, and thanks for reporting. Operator and Visual mode handling isn t easy and I m learning it the hard way ... Anyway, after another session in
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Mar 25, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Sung Pae <self@...> wrote:
                                      > Let's create a simple (and incomplete) custom motion:
                                      >
                                      > function! SelectInCaps()
                                      > let [bl, bc] = searchpos('\u', 'cbW')
                                      > let [el, ec] = searchpos('.\u\ze', 'W')
                                      > call setpos("'<", [0, bl, bc, 0])
                                      > call setpos("'>", [0, el, ec, 0])
                                      > normal! gv
                                      > endfunction
                                      >
                                      > Then map it to both visual and operator-pending modes:
                                      >
                                      > vmap ic :<C-U>call SelectInCaps()<CR>
                                      > omap ic :<C-U>call SelectInCaps()<CR>
                                      >
                                      > Repeating the command dic with the . command works now with your patch:
                                      >
                                      > Foo|BarBazQuux
                                      > Foo|BazQuux " dic
                                      > Foo|Quuz " .
                                      >
                                      > However, if we invoke vic after running dic, the . command no longer has
                                      > any affect:
                                      >
                                      > Foo|BarBazQuux
                                      > Foo|BazQuux " dic
                                      > Foo|BazQuux " vic<Esc>
                                      > Foo|BazQuux " .

                                      Yes, sorry, and thanks for reporting. Operator and Visual mode handling
                                      isn't easy and I'm learning it the hard way ...

                                      Anyway, after another session in the debugger I came up with the slight
                                      amendment in the attachment. If you would like to try it, be my guest. I
                                      hope I can find the time to write a few tests.

                                      David

                                      --
                                      --
                                      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

                                      ---
                                      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                                      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                                      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                    • Sung Pae
                                      ... Yes, this definitely solves the problem with visual selections clearing the repeat. I tried poking around a bit more, and I couldn t find any obvious
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Mar 25, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:48PM +0100, glts wrote:

                                        > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Sung Pae <self@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Let's create a simple (and incomplete) custom motion: …
                                        >
                                        > Anyway, after another session in the debugger I came up with the
                                        > slight amendment in the attachment. If you would like to try it, be my
                                        > guest. I hope I can find the time to write a few tests.

                                        Yes, this definitely solves the problem with visual selections clearing
                                        the repeat. I tried poking around a bit more, and I couldn't find any
                                        obvious problems, which is exciting.

                                        All that appears to be left to achieve parity with builtin cursor
                                        motions is the issue with v:count. I will report any problems should I
                                        find them.

                                        Thank you for looking into this.

                                        Sung Pae

                                        --
                                        --
                                        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

                                        ---
                                        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
                                        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
                                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.