[ please keep the Cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when replying, so that the bug report keep track of our discussion, it may be useful to others ]
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:35:55AM +1200, Srdjan wrote: > > Do you mean "abandoned" (using vim's manual terminology), that happens > > for instance when you ":e" a file while editing another one (in this > > case the latter is abandoned)? > > I'm referring to the situation where you have two files, lets say a.txt and > b.txt, in split windows. When you close a.txt in one split window with :q or > :x, > and stay with b.txt only, hat should release (remove) .a.txt.swp. That is not > happening. You're not answering my question: do you have the "hidden" option set or not? If you do, the behaviour you're observing is normal, since in fact executing :x does not force the unloading of the buffer from vim's memory. Look at the difference. Case (1), option "hidden" set ----------------------------- $ vim -o a.txt b.txt ... editing, then executing ":x" on a.txt ... executing :ls will show: :ls 1 #h "a.txt" line 1 2 %a "b.txt" line 1 as you can see a.txt is still loaded and indeed .a.txt.swp is on my filesystem Case (2), option "hidden" *not* set ----------------------------------- $ vim -o a.txt b.txt ... editing, then executing ":x" on a.txt ... executing :ls will show: :ls 1 # "a.txt" line 1 2 %a "b.txt" line 1 (note how buffer 1 is not hidden as it was above) no file .a.txt.swp is on my filesystem Are you in case (1) or (2)? If you are in (1) it is not a bug, but the documented behaviour of vim. If you are in (2) it can be a bug, but I can't reproduce it on my system. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
