----- Forwarded message from Milan Vancura <[email protected]> -----
To: Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> Cc: Vim development list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Bug: 'l' breaks macro when run at the end of line > Not a bug: "2l" behaves different than "ll" when the second "l" doesn't > work. "2l" just stops, "ll" is an error and the operation is aborted. > When at the end of the line "2l" also produces an error, since it can't > move at all. Hello Bram. I'm sorry to seem nit-picking but what you did is you perfectly described what happens (in better words than I did, or at least shorter) but you did not write any single word about why such behaviour is not a bug. Neither 99l on previous-to-last char nor '99l' on the last char can't be done (completely). I really don't see the logic in background of this. Yes, I found one point myself: I see the same behaviour in linewise mode: d99j works on any other line than the last one. But why such non-intuitive behaviour is there? Other then bug-to-bug compatibility with vi? (if that is the only reason we may think about an option and about including that option setting as a part of 'compatible' option). I tried to think about reasons (for macro programming or general usage) but found really nothing. Thank you for the explanation, Milan Vancura ----- End forwarded message ----- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
