On Sun, March 6, 2011 3:20 am, 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.
Well, you can use "1p and if this is not the change you were looking for, undo it and redo it: u. this will keep iterating from register 1 until you hit register 9. See redo-register regards, Christian -- 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
