On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:33 +1000 Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Perhaps, as you say, it should offer a substitute command that works > >> line by line as well, but "someone has to do it" (tm) and "patches are > >> welcome" (tm) (that right Frank ;-). > > > > Thats a better answer than your previous one :-). > > Oh, there is rarely any objection to contributions, that goes without saying. > > I was noting that the current behavior is not a bug (since it behaves > as specified) so it doesn't have to be fixed. nor is a change in > behavior necessary (since there is a workaround to the rare "problem") > so it doesn't have to be fixed. With limited resources there are far > more important things to think about. Personally I think we shouldn't rematch a replaced start of line. I think this is counter intuitive. Is there a reason why the current behaviour is better? Anyway, the reason it works as it does was because that was easier to implement. > I personally don't care if someone changes it (although I think that > going back to line by line operation is a step back into the time when > whole files would not fit in memory, ah hey lets bring back Teco ;-). Not sure anyone's proposing preventing matching past a line. Regards, Nick _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany