Ben Fritz wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:33:08 AM UTC-5, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > > I'm not sure including this patch will not cause problems. The code > > assumes there is always at least one unchanged lines between diff > > blocks. When two blocks are touching (no line in between) that means > > they should actually be one block. > > > > Changing the assumption is tricky, it might work in some cases but not > > always. It may cause problems for commands like "do" and "dp". > > We would at least need some good tests to make sure nothing breaks. > > > > OK, so Vim can still combine adjacent blocks. But can it be be updated > to use this assumption, yet correctly handle any valid ed-style diff > (in terms of adding diff filler and alignment of lines which are part > of the same hunk in the diff)?
What valid ed-style diff is not handled? Note that a diff with two adjecent blocks is not valid, diff will never produce it. > I certainly have no problem with do/dp getting the entire combination > of changes for adjacent hunks, I just want Vim to show me the effect > of those hunks properly. > > -- > 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 -- To define recursion, we must first define recursion. /// 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
