2009/9/10 John Beckett <[email protected]>: > > Milan Vancura wrote: >> Consider a two-line file: >> >> AA >> 2lp > > I am going to take a wild guess and hope that someone will find > support in the documentation. > > A command like 99l may be interpreted to mean "move right N > times, where N is the smaller of 99 and the maximum possible". > > However, a command like ll might mean "move right, then move > right again; if either of these cannot move, that is an error". > > Conclusion: Your 2l command did not abort the macro because not > moving was not considered an error, but the ll command did > generate an error. I suppose one could try a test with try/catch > for a further experiment. > > John
I agree with you (and I hope it is not a misinterpretation of your email) that this behaviour might be intended. However, if your explanation of the difference between 2l and ll is correct, I would expect the macro not to fail even if the cursor is placed on the second A. BTW unlike documentation e.g. for :global or :tabdo, documentation for @ does not mention the expected behaviour if an error is encountered. IMHO this means that errors should be ignored. -- Lech --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
