On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Paul Fox <[email protected]> wrote: > marc wrote: > > [snip] > > Agreed re: cw vs. cqwq, thanks for clarifying (I was treating change + > > sweep as a completely separate operation). Frankly, I'm finding quoted > > well, without thinking too hard about it, i'd say that the > traditional "exceptions" that 'c' causes to word motions should probably > be suppressed when doing quoted motions. i probably didn't consider > that case at the time -- i think i was picturing quoted motions as > being more like: > cq<arrow><arrow><arrow><arrow><arrow><arrow>q > since the concepts of "word", "next X character", etc don't feel > as naturally applicable (to me) with rectangular selections.
Similar impression here—I've been considering cqwwq as: 0. change the following 1. [enter sweep mode] 2. step a word, then another (i.e., interactively move the cursor) 3. [end sweep mode and complete the change over the bounded region] That is, my expectation in step (2) is for motion to behave as it does in normal/visual mode with the change queued for after completion of a selection; 'c' and 'w' are decoupled. > > 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. > > that feels like a real bug. Ack. /M _______________________________________________ vile mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/vile
