On Sunday, January 6, 2013 2:07:39 PM UTC+1, Christian Brabandt wrote:
What exactly do you consider a bug? Using p is a pretty basic action and
changing the cursor position will be a backwards incompatible change and
will probably break many scripts, macros and maps, thus it is not
As i wrote in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_use/cDXHgO5iBfI
the thing that surprised me the most was that the behavior changes depending on
whether there are line breaks in the pasted text.
Alexey.
P.S. About my previous comment: i've remembered that actually i've slightly
Hi Christian,
thanks for the answer. It goes along with my perception. I consider this a bug
which needs a fix. Also, at times it would come very handy to have p's
functionality being different from gp's.
--
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your
On 06/01/13 13:08, Axel Bender wrote:
Hi Christian,
thanks for the answer. It goes along with my perception. I consider this a bug
which needs a fix. Also, at times it would come very handy to have p's
functionality being different from gp's.
They are different. For characterwise put at
Hi Axel!
On So, 06 Jan 2013, Axel Bender wrote:
Hi Christian,
thanks for the answer. It goes along with my perception. I consider this a
bug which needs a fix. Also, at times it would come very handy to have p's
functionality being different from gp's.
What exactly do you consider a
I'm wondering if the behavior of normal mode p is correct in respect to the
cursor position?
The docs state for gp:
Just like p, but leave the cursor just after the new text.
which suggests/implies that after p the cursor should stay in its current
position (which - unfortunately - is not
Hi Axel!
On Fr, 04 Jan 2013, Axel Bender wrote:
I'm wondering if the behavior of normal mode p is correct in respect to the
cursor position?
The docs state for gp:
Just like p, but leave the cursor just after the new text.
which suggests/implies that after p the cursor should stay
