* Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060906 17:07]: > > After you do ":set nohidden" there still is one hidden buffer. Thus the > first TestBuf() after that will work a bit different from the next ones. > > I do see a problem: The info about the current buffer is displayed even > though you edited another buffer. Thus the message should be given for > the un-hidden file but it's given for the other file, for which a > message was already given. I'll fix that. >
Okay, I did not get all of the steps to reproduce the problem, though I thought I had followed my own steps carefully to verify them after writing them down. :-( Note that somefile.txt already exists and has some text before starting. In my testing since my last message, testbuf.vim already existed except in the very first test, in which I pasted the text and did :w at the step designated in my last message. It seems that after :set hidden, you must :call TestBuf() twice to see what I believe is wrong (or switch to the second buffer and back, followed by :call TestBuf()). The first time, I see two lines of output, followed by the "Press ENTER" prompt: "testbuf.vim" 9 lines, 208 characters Done with TestBuf (found = 3) Press ENTER or type command to continue I understand this behavior, and it is TTBOMK correct. The second time, I only see one line (and no "Press ENTER" prompt): "somefile.txt" line 1 of 28 --3%-- col 1 The behavior that I believe is incorrect is that I see the output from the exec "b" curbuf command, but not the output from my echomsg command. The other behavior that I believe is incorrect is that adding silent in front of _both_ exec "b" commands still produces the output from the silent exec "b" curbuf even though it is supposed to be silent; I also do not see the output from my echomsg. Further note, in this last case using silent, that :messages shows the output from my echomsg _before_ the output from silent exec "b" curbuf. ...Marvin
