On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 09:20:16PM -0500, Donald Allen wrote: > > Yes, you are right (in fact, that's how I proceeded after realizing > undo didn't restore the register stack). But I'm talking about > ease-of-use and efficient editing, and 'p' is a lot faster and easier > to type than '"0p' (after all, this is the editor where Steve Oualline > tells you on page 6 of his book not to use the arrow keys for cursor > movement, because it will slow down your editing). If undo restored > the stack as it was before the command I undid, I could have used 'p'. > I also think that what I'm proposing presents a more sensible model of > undo to the user. Ideally, (in my opinion), after 'undo', the world > would be as if the undone command had never been executed. That's > impossible to do perfectly, I understand that. But I think vim can > come closer to the ideal than it does now. >
If 'undo' undoes the change of the register, what about 'redo'? Shoud it also redoes the change to the register? If so, suppose I edit a buffer, then undo the change, and switch to another buffer and do a 'dd'. Back to the previous buffer, before to put it, I find I should not undo the change, so I redo it. Then, how can I get the previous 'dd' line? IMHO, 'undo' is local to the buffer, while registers are global to the editor, so undoing registers may cause some strange behaviours. -- Best regards, lilydjwg Linux Vim Python 我的博客 http://lilydjwg.is-programmer.com/ -- 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
