On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:00:30 PM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote: > > I thought about alternative ways to achieve the same effect but I can't see > > any simpler way to keep that guarantee (which is essential in my opinion). > > > This is the major point on which I'd like to have feedback. Is this ok? Did > > I miss something? Will this get merged (possibly after some polishing, of > > course)? > > :/
Sorry, I don't know how to interpret this. > > > Regarding the interface: > > > > > > As discussed, I used :keepjumps! for the recursive version. > > > This has forced me to make some changes to the parser, to account for the > > possibility of the trailing bang in the command. > > ea->forceit should already indicate presence of bang. I should certainly use that instead of the ugly "TRUER" return value I have come up with, but as far as I can tell in the current code that field is not used for command modifiers, which are parsed with "checkforcmd" and are only expected to consist of "isalpha" characters. That's why I had to change "checkforcmd". > > I also doubt that anyone would be relying on such behaviours as the ones > > which would be broken by the change. > > Many plugins use keepjumps, would need to analyze those cases. Sure, that would need to be done. I may try to have a look at that at some point (e.g. by looking at the code found in vimscripts and/or in popular github repos - vimawesome.com has a list which would help there). This is a secondary aspect anyway; agreeing upon the internal implementation is what matters the most at this stage. Carlo -- -- 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.
