On 06-Jan-2011 17:30, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> It's easy enough to change:
>
> --- ../../vim-7.3.098/src/ex_docmd.c 2010-12-02 16:01:23.000000000 +0100
> +++ ex_docmd.c 2011-01-06 17:23:43.000000000 +0100
> @@ -9310,7 +9310,7 @@
> && !got_int)
> {
> update_topline_cursor();
> - normal_cmd(&oa, FALSE); /* execute a Normal mode cmd */
> + normal_cmd(&oa, TRUE); /* execute a Normal mode cmd */
> }
> }
> #endif
>
>
> I wonder what trouble this would cause.
On 06-Jan-2011 21:08, Douglas A. Augusto wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:13 pm, Ingo Karkat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wow, I hoped it would be simple, but I didn't imagine it THAT simple :-) Any
>> insights whether the implementation of passing FALSE was deliberate?
>>
>> I can at least confirm that this patch fixes the issue in my automated
>> tests. I
>> will run through my other 10 test suites, try some of my mappings and plugins
>> with it, and report any problem if I find one. Naturally, I would like to
>> have
>> this in Vim ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply, Bram!
>>
>> -- regards, ingo
>
> Hi,
>
> I can also confirm that the solution proposed by Bram fixes the issue.
> I've
> created a Vim script that remaps normal mode commands to provide some
> sort of
> "line-based jump memory", and until then the script wasn't properly
> working in
> ":normal" when counts were used; now everything works like a charm.
>
> Thank you Bram, Ingo, and ZyX for forwarding the issue to this mailing
> list.
I've done some more testing (i.e. used the modifed Vim in my typical editing),
and didn't encounter any adverse effects. Bram, how about including this patch
to expose this to a wider audience?
-- regards, ingo
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
