APPROACH 2:
- <>-notation LHS defines specific and ambiguous maps
- <C-M> defines ^M and CSI-Ctrl-M
- <Enter> defines ^M and CSI-Enter
APPROACH 3:
- Ambiguous LHS defines ambiguous and specific maps
- ^M defines ^M, CSI-Ctrl-M and CSI-Enter
- <>-notation LHS defines specific and ambiguous maps
- <C-M> defines ^M and CSI-Ctrl-M
- <Enter> defines ^M and CSI-Enter
Note that because these approaches define multiple mappings for a single
piece of <>-notation, the number of mappings to be defined grows
exponentially with the number of <>-notation keys in the mapping. So we
need to view these specifications as conceptual, not actually as
implementation approaches.
AFAICT, this should be easy enough to overcome (just alter the mapping
lookup mechanism and LHS storage mechanism, which truly doesn't affect
anything else), and has no bearing on the previously-listed benefits and
drawbacks (enumeration difficulties and inefficiencies just happen at a
different point for approach 3, and approach 2 barely suffers).
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
