On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Paul Fox <[email protected]> wrote: > there's an intentional difference between some simple motions and > their range of action with some operators, in particular the 'c'hange > operator. for instance, 'w' and 'e' are different, but 'cw' and 'ce' > are the same. this is a replication of long-standing vi behavior.
Agreed re: cw vs. cqwq, thanks for clarifying (I was treating change + sweep as a completely separate operation). Frankly, I'm finding quoted motion a tad confusing—some of the issues raised are clearly due to user error. One more example: - cqwwq: only changes the first word - The second word motion essentially behaves as l; - cq2wq, the most direct analogue to normal vi, works as expected. Is this as intended? If so, then the only valid issue I've raised is: d3qGeq, c3qGeq (rectangles). /M _______________________________________________ vile mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/vile
