Ben Fritz wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:20:21 AM UTC-5, Ingo Karkat wrote: > > On 04-Jun-2012 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Ben Fritz wrote: > > > > > However, I think this behavior is confusing, and there is a very small > > > window of time in an editing session during which the new behavior can > > > actually be used. > > > > Right, the change is miniscule, but I don't think the new behavior is > > inconsistent or unexpected. It now amounts to a default "previous acted-on > > selection" of one character / line, and the original 1v behavior isn't > > affected > > at all. > > > > I realized this on my commute this morning. That's a much nice way of > looking at it. The help text could read: > > [count]v Start Visual mode per character. > With [count], select the same number of characters as > the last acted-on visual selection, multiplied by > [count], like moving the cursor right. If there is no > last acted-on visual selection, select that many > characters.
So we drop the idea of using 5v to select five characters. One can use v5l, thus it's not much of a problem. And the current implementation only works when there was no previous Visual selection, not that useful. What does multiply mean in Visual block mode? > > > I think a new option, or a new 'cpo' flag, may be > > > needed to switch between the behaviors entirely if both are desired. > > > > Please no new option. I've already shown that the alternative, overriding 1v > > altogether, is trivial to implement in Vimscript. > > http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/msg/356e55ed40643ea2 > > This could be placed (in commented for) in vimrc_example.vim. > > > > Agreed, if it is viewed as a fallback to the real feature, not an > alternate behavior of the feature. The mapping to change behavior > could be given as an example near the help for [count]v and friends. > > > > 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. -- Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea ... -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" /// 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
