So, what about executing 1000@@ as @@999@@ (where in turn 999@@ is executed as @@998@@ and so on ... and 2@@ as @@1@@ and 1@@ as @@ )?
I like the idea. Hadn't thought of using recursion when I wrote about the issue earlier, but yes, of course, that's an obvious and simple way to implement it. Putting together a patch would only take a couple of minutes. What do you think, Bram? I don't think anything could really meaningfully make use of the current behaviour, so even though technically it would break backward compatibility it wouldn't break anything useful. Ben. -- 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
