ZyX wrote:
> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:28:25 PM UTC+4, ZyX wrote:
> > And fourth: behave like map: do its job until lock occurs and fail at the
> > first lock.
> > * The above code was for :unlet, for :let slice assignment there should be
> > something similar (except that option 3. will no longer be consistent with
> > anything).
>
> Full patch for fourth approach (with tests):
Thanks for providing so many alternatives. In my opinion what most
people expect is that it either works, removes all items, or fails, does
not remove any items.
Running map is different, since it's clear the function is called for
one item at a time. While removing is expected to do the whole slice at
once.
I understand that the second solution is more work to implement, but
user expectation is more important.
Can you make a test for the second solution? The test for the fourth
solution should already be close.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
38. You wake up at 3 a.m. to go to the bathroom and stop and check your e-mail
on the way back to bed.
/// 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/d/optout.
