Ben Schmidt wrote:
> > 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.
You can't rely on the register not changing in the first @@, thus the
following 999@@ may do something completely different. Won't work.
--
It doesn't really matter what you are able to do if you don't do it.
(Bram Moolenaar)
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
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
