After having actually run the new code (current version of which was introduced in commit 4dfbed11308), I commented the two lines out
;; (define-key viper-vi-basic-map [tab] (or (key-binding [tab]) ;; (key-binding "\C-i"))) because for me it brought one problem -- the code binds <tab> at the point of loading Vimpulse to some binding <tab> happens to have at that time; but the binding also overrides any major mode maps, so e.g. in Org mode, I now got `yas-expand' on <tab> instead of the previous and correct `org-cycle' in Vi state (because Vi state originally had no binding for <tab> at all, it worked just fine). While I understand what the change was supposed to do, I don't really understand *why* you did it. Vegard? Does it solve any problems or bring any actual advantages? I don't feel too strongly about it, because in Vi state there is no universal way to have major mode bindings respected, i.e. it's just a fortunate coincidence that <tab> was unbound in Vi state; the only safe way is to use Emacs state for the mode or mess with the Viper maps. OTOH, I really don't see why you made that change, so I figured I'd ask. ;-) Štěpán _______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
