Stephen Bach <[email protected]> writes: [Disclaimer: this reply only expresses my own opinion.]
<snip> > Now, the single impacting regression I've run up against so far is with > undo. Unlike Vim and my old version of Vimpulse, reverting a change > with e.g. "cw" requires two undos instead of one. This is a pretty > significant deviation, at least for my workflow. > > I scanned through the code and saw vimpulse-connect-undos, currently > disabled because of a dependency on undo-tree.el. A couple questions: > > 1. What makes undo-tree.el preferable to redo.el, for Vimpulse's > purposes? undo-tree.el provides undo tree functionality. Vim provides undo tree functionality. Vimpulse emulates Vim. > 2. Is fixing "cw" and friends a priority, or is it something that > users of Vimpulse have learned to live with? I actually like Emacs' undo better, i.e. I like the current behaviour better than Vim's more extensive undo steps -- it's trivial to hit `u' twice instead of once, whereas it's non-trivial (impossible AFAIK) to only undo a part of an undo step. I personally would just get rid of the currently defunct vimpulse-connect-undos code entirely. OTOH, Vimpulse emulates Vim, so you can argue it should restore the bigger undo steps. Štěpán _______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
