Jean-Rene David wrote: > [pasted from vim_use] > > * Tim Chase [2011.04.28 14:00]: > > Not sure if this is an old-version-of-vim thing, or if it's just a > > peculiar interaction. Scenario: I had a bunch of vim-windows open on > > various files and wanted to close those that contained a given > > pattern (in the example below, using "@" as my pattern to close > > windows with email addresses in them), so I issued: > > > > :windo g/pattern/q > > > > which did as I expected, but had the odd side effect of printing > > misleading messages about additional/fewer lines: > > > > 193 more lines > > E486: Pattern not found: @ > > 86 fewer lines > > 16 fewer lines > > E486: Pattern not found: @ > > > > (the E486 is ignorable because those were the files that didn't match > > the pattern). No lines were actually added/removed. The > > "more"/"fewer" lines likely comes from Vim noting the number of lines > > before the ":g" and comparing it to number of lines after the ":g", > > and reporting the difference, but not noticing that the > > file/buffer/window had changed in the process. > > > > Looks like a minor bug or underdocumentation to me, though certainly > > not grievous. > > Attached is a small patch that fixes this. The problem is that :g > doesn't check whether the buffer it's in after it finishes is the same > as the buffer it started in.
Thanks for the patch! -- You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you. /// 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
