Shane Harper wrote:
> The "first buffer" and not the "first buffer that is not deleted" was
> being used when processing :bufdo.
Do you mean the first buffer that is listed, thus skipping unlisted
buffers?
> new_ex_bufdo_function.diff: bufdo specific code was moved out of
> ex_listdo() into a new function ex_bufdo(). I made the change so I
> could more easily understand how bufdo is processed. (Much of the diff
> is due to increasing indentation level of some code. The diff looks
> *much* nicer when ignoring whitespace changes.)
>
> bufdo_skip_deleted_buffer.diff: bug fix including updated test case.
> (Apply after new_ex_bufdo_function.diff.)
Would the fix also work if we didn't split out ex_bufdo()? Or is
splitting it off essential for being able to fix it?
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
250. You've given up the search for the "perfect woman" and instead,
sit in front of the PC until you're just too tired to care.
/// 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.
