Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes: > On 2010-07-23 16:16, Štěpán Němec wrote: > >> I consider this to be a problem, too, and even started to implement >> it before some time, but as I almost never use it and nobody else >> seemed to ever mention this, it remained a stub, i.e. it sort-of >> works, but a bit funnily and not quite as in Vim (yet). > > Why not keep the existing code, but extend it to use the global mark > ring (C-x C-<SPC>)? There's already a convention for larger movement > commands to set the mark (so that C-x C-x jumps back to the previous > position).
Well, yeah -- it again boils down to what we (and the majority of Vimpulse users) really want: Vim compatibility (in that case a rewrite in the direction the stub attempts would be in order), or some other kind of useful behaviour (whatever that means)? I don't care all that much in this case -- Emacs provides both local and global mark commands (i.e. I'm actually currently using C-u C-SPC for what you're using C-o now). *But* if I recollect correctly, when I made those changes, I didn't really see an easy way to use vanilla Emacs functionality to achieve Vim's C-i/C-o, that's why I went for the ring+advice approach. And it actually seemed to work (right? :-)) for the functions defined as jumps in Vim documentation, only the search commands are missing (I think). But you like your local C-i/C-o, don't you? :-) (Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying/proposing -- the problem is that in Emacs the buffer-local vs. global marks distinction is fundamental and very clear cut, unlike Vim, where there is an explicitely defined set of jump commands, no matter where they take you (see :h jump-motions), and jumps are independent of marks. I don't see how you want to reconcile the two.) Štěpán _______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
