Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
> It doesn't say why though, and the reason IIUC is that vi did it that way,
> and it's such a basic command that millions are used to it. IMO we'd be
> better off with consistency, c{motion} is like d{motion} then enter insert
> mode, without this special case, but after 40 years...
>
> Regards, John Little
Either fully consistent, as you expect, or fully speaking as "change word".
The current translation is the mixed case "change to end of word".
Regards
Elmar
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:53:00 AM UTC+13, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> But ":h cw" opens with a defence of this "Special case: ...change-word".
It doesn't say why though, and the reason IIUC is that vi did it that way, and
it's such a basic command that millions are used to it. IMO we'd be better off
with consistency, c{motion} is like d{motion} then enter insert mode, without
this special case, but after 40 years...
Regards, John Little
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
> As pointed out once or twice upthread, please read ":h cw", in particular > the last paragraph. For those who can see, it is there. > > Erik Shouldn't an editor startup with the most consistent settings by default? Elmar -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
On 12.02.16 03:02, Elmar Hinz wrote:
>
> > It doesn't say why though, and the reason IIUC is that vi did it
> > that way, and it's such a basic command that millions are used to
> > it. IMO we'd be better off with consistency, c{motion} is like
> > d{motion} then enter insert mode, without this special case, but
> > after 40 years...
> >
> > Regards, John Little
>
> Either fully consistent, as you expect, or fully speaking as "change
> word".
>
> The current translation is the mixed case "change to end of word".
As pointed out once or twice upthread, please read ":h cw", in particular
the last paragraph. For those who can see, it is there.
Erik
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
On 11.02.16 03:43, 'Elmar Hinz' via vim_use wrote: > the normal behaviour of the w motion is to move n words forward and to act > exclusively. Yes, the motion is (mostly) to the start of the next/nth word. (exclusive) > Different from this the normal behaviour of cw is to change to the end > of the current word, much like ce. Ah, I don't ever use cw within a word, but ce instead, so haven't noticed that it fails to eat the space as it should, to be consistent. But ":h cw" opens with a defence of this "Special case: ...change-word". > But what happens when hitting cw on whitespace between words? The w motion is then perfectly as specified, and as expected. It is particularly handy when correcting indentation of a few lines to align with a leading line of arbitrary indentation: 1) Move to start of leading line, with ^. 2) j 3) dw 4) Loop to 2 until done, using '.' at 3, i.e. j.j.j.j. Erik -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
> The w motion is then perfectly as specified, and as expected. > It is particularly handy when correcting indentation of a few > lines to align with a leading line of arbitrary indentation: > > 1) Move to start of leading line, with ^. > 2) j > 3) dw > 4) Loop to 2 until done, using '.' at 3, i.e. j.j.j.j. > > > Erik Hi Erik, sure the dw motion. My questions here cover the cw motion on whitespace in special. Strange stuff. Sure, that is something you likely never hit upon, unless you try to clone that behaviour and ask yourself should I really do that or should it be improved in Vim itself. Kind regards, Elmar -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
> > (I start vim as "vim -u NONE" to exclude influences of personal settings. > Right?) > I just detected that "vim -u NONE" brought mit into vi "compatible" setting. So all I observed here is rather vi behaviour. It's already improved with "nocompatible". It doesn't exactly work as I would intuitively expect, but consistently enough. So please forget about the details. How do I get my personal settings out of the way, without falling into vi compatible? Kind regards Elmar -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
Hi, 'Elmar Hinz' via vim_use schrieb am 11.02.2016 um 15:00: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 2:41:42 PM UTC+1, Elmar Hinz wrote: > >> How do I get my personal settings out of the way, without falling into vi >> compatible? >> >> > > vim -u NONE -C > I think you meant vim -u NONE -N Regards, Jürgen -- Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Calvin) -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
> I think you meant > > vim -u NONE -N > You think right again. :) Elmar -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
On 11.02.16 05:06, Elmar Hinz wrote: > > The w motion is then perfectly as specified, and as expected. > > It is particularly handy when correcting indentation of a few > > lines to align with a leading line of arbitrary indentation: > > > > 1) Move to start of leading line, with ^. > > 2) j > > 3) dw > > 4) Loop to 2 until done, using '.' at 3, i.e. j.j.j.j. > > > > > > Erik > > Hi Erik, > > sure the dw motion. My questions here cover the cw motion on > whitespace in special. Strange stuff. Noo-oo, it is cw within a word which is strange. Invoked from whitespace it is unsurprising, going to the start of the nth word, exclusive. Perfectly consistent with w by itself. Please read ":help cw", which makes clear that it is deliberately strange within a word. A mapping to provide consistent behaviour is proffered there. Vim has "compatible" and "nocompatible" modes w.r.t. vi. Perhaps you might think of doing the same w.r.t. vim. Whether vi compatibility is retained in your vim-n-a-bit, is another question. (Look at the vi bug described at ":help cw".) > Sure, that is something you likely never hit upon, unless you try to > clone that behaviour and ask yourself should I really do that or > should it be improved in Vim itself. In this instance, it is already improved in Vim itself. ;-) (Each user can choose convenience or correctness, according to preference - that's close to perfection.) Erik -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 2:41:42 PM UTC+1, Elmar Hinz wrote: > > > > (I start vim as "vim -u NONE" to exclude influences of personal settings. > > Right?) > > > How do I get my personal settings out of the way, without falling into vi > compatible? > > vim -u NONE -C -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Feature or bug? Funny behaviour of cw on whitespace.
Hello, the normal behaviour of the w motion is to move n words forward and to act exclusively. Different from this the normal behaviour of cw is to change to the end of the current word, much like ce. But what happens when hitting cw on whitespace between words? (I start vim as "vim -u NONE" to exclude influences of personal settings. Right?) Case 1: cw It replaces the current space and switches to insert mode. It doesn't ask for word boundaries at all. So it differs from the default w motion in this. Case 2: 2cw On contrary this one follows strictly the default w motion. The motion replaces forward all up to two words but excludes the beginning of the target word. Result is, that a command telling to change 2 words is changing 2 whitespace regions with one word in between, what feels very funny. Both cases behave not the way, I would intuitively expect. That makes it more surprising, that they differ in behaviour. What would I intuitively expect? * 2cw on whitespace: Change up to the end of 2 words forward. * 2cw in word: Change from beginning of first word to the end of second word. Again my question are: * What is the reasoning for this behaviour? * Is it for reason of vi compatibility (only)? * Is there a consensus, that this oddity would ideally to be improved? * If so, is there a roadmap to an improved version, a kind of VIM2 "oddity cleaned"? Kind regards, Elmar -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
