On 05-Jun-2012 08:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Ben Fritz wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:20:21 AM UTC-5, Ingo Karkat wrote:
> > [14 sentences deleted]
>>> I prefer the old behavior over the new.
>>
>> No arguments here. In fact, I would like to have a 1v variant that
>> also applies the last selection to the current position when is was
>> *not* yet acted on, to "clone" the previous selection to another
>> place. [count]gv isn't taken yet; I would love to see at patch for
>> that.
>
> Is there a reason for it to only use the last "acted-on" area, or is
> that an unintended quirk? I don't see a reason to keep that limitation
> of the current behavior at all.
Bram is concerned about backwards compatibility, and I generally concur with
him:
http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/msg/c9aa8379a00c58c5
However, I think nobody is currently using gv with a [count] on purpose, because
the count is ignored. So even though gv / 1gv is not a perfect parallelism to v
/ 1v, I think it would make a nice addition, especially because this is
cumbersome to implement in pure Vimscript.
-- regards, ingo
--
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
