Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On So, 22 Mai 2011, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> >
> > Christian Brabandt wrote:
> >
> > > On So, 22 Mai 2011, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's true that using ";" after a "t" command is currently close to
> > > > useless. Changing this would be backwards incompatible, but I doubt
> > > > anyone would notice. I hardly use ";" anyway. Would there be any
> > > > plugin that breaks? I can't think of a reason why a plugin would rely
> > > > on
> > > > ";" not moving.
> > > >
> > > > So I tend to think I would include such a patch.
> > >
> > > Ok, here is the patch. I made it so that only including the ';' in 'cpo'
> > > would change the behaviour. If you don't want to introduce a new 'cpo'
> > > setting, I am fine with simply changing the current implementation. The
> > > comment should explain how it works.
> >
> > Thanks. I think the behavior should be default in 'nocompatible' mode.
> >
> > Please add a test for the new behavior, and sticking to the old behavior
> > when ';' is in 'cpo'.
>
> Please find attached a new patch.
>
> Funny thing is, it took me longer to create the test case then to write
> the patch ;)
Thanks. However, it seems the test doesn't check if ";" does not move
the cursor, only that it moves the cursor. I would expect the test to
use ";;;" in the second line. Or "tt;".
Your second message doesn't appear to change this.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
94. Now admit it... How many of you have made "modem noises" into
the phone just to see if it was possible? :-)
/// 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
