Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 1/29/07, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On 1/29/07, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea would be to leave the undo list alone, so that when the undo
> > table gets updated next it'll have a bigger change.
> What do you mean? From the very short description it sounds like your
> describing :undojoin.
A "keepundo" would be more akin to the "keepjumps", "keepalt" style of
suppressing
some update for the command which follows.
But to be able to undo/redo, Vim has to know about what changes have
taken place, otherwise it can't guarantee that undo/redo will work
correctly.
nikolai
IIUC what Dr.Chip said in his "original post", the idea is to have the same
set of changes to undo, but with more of them grouped under a single execution
of undo/redo (i.e., make the undo points farther away from each other than
they would be otherwise).
I'm not sure how I feel about this suggestion. I guess the pros and cons would
have to be discussed in detail.
Best regards,
Tony.
