Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On So, 02 Jun 2013, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > There is too much discussion about this. I think the current behavior
> > is OK and does not have enough disadvantage to justify adding yet
> > another option.
>
> Note, that latest patch I sent, does not require an extra option, is
> rather small, makes the code much more readable (imho) and we can even
> get rid of test89.
You mean the patch you sent on May 30?
I don't see anybody responding that they like that solution.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
52. You ask a plumber how much it would cost to replace the chair in front of
your computer with a toilet.
/// 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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
