On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:42:49AM +0200, Štěpán Němec wrote: > Stephen Bach <[email protected]> writes: > > > > 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.
Ah, I guess it's just not something I use in my regular workflow. > > 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. It may be something I could get used to, except I switch between Vim and Emacs regularly and the dissonance becomes apparent. Also, I think I prefer the idea of "cw" being an atomic action as opposed to "dw i".
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
