Could be defacto standardized.  You need to compare the past.

Your finger memory has surely discovered this fairly recently.  Messing
with older people's finger memory is a very dangerous proposition.

So go do the work of discovering where there are divergences, and where/
when they occured.

Nils Reuße <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> there is a flaw in base vi when moving by sentences, going forward is not
> equal to going backward.  Here's what man vi says:
> 
>   [count] (
>   [count] )
>     Move count sentences backward or forward, respectively.  A
>     sentence is an area of text that begins with the first nonblank
>     character following the previous sentence, paragraph, or section
>     boundary and continues until the next period, exclamation mark,
>     or question mark character, followed by any number of closing
>     parentheses, brackets, double or single quote characters,
>     followed by either an end-of-line or two whitespace characters.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Groups of empty lines (or lines containing only whitespace
>     characters) are treated as a single sentence.
> 
> Going forward a sentence follows this rule, but going backwards stops at
> a single space before a punctuation mark.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> A sentence.  A sentence containing !, ? and .  A third sentence!
> )            )                                 )
> (            (                          (      (
> 
> When the double spaces are condensed to one, the whole line is regarded as
> one large sentence going forward, but the same pattern as above is shown when
> going backwards.
> 
> 
> With skippable characters, it is even more different:
> 
> A sentence.  A sentence containing [!'], '?' and .  A third sentence!
> )            )                                      )
> (            (                         (     (      (
> 
> Again, with single spaces, the whole line is regarded as one going forwards,
> and the same behavior as above is shown when going backwards.
> 
> 
> Now, before doing any work, is there even any interest in fixing this, i.e. 
> that moving for- and backwards produce the same results?  If so, which 
> behavior 
> is desired?
> 
> -- Nils
> 

Reply via email to