Olaf Dabrunz wrote: > Just for the record, and to answer the question I asked in the thread: > I think that a repeatable :diffoff (as in this patch) makes more sense. > > If :diffoff only worked once after diff mode was entered, it would not > destroy user settings. > > But always returning diff settings back to safed "sane" settings (rather > than to one-size-fits-all defaults, when :diffoff is repeated) is > probably more useful. Esp. because only settings are touched that look > like they are left over from diff mode. So it is not too destructive. > > This is a repeatable :diffoff that "carefully backs out of diff mode".
We'll have to see if a user comes up with a situation where the current behavior would be a problem. Since the docs didn't need to be updated it's probably OK. By the way, if you can add a test for the new behavior (and what didn't change) that would be good. -- I'm so disorganized my keyboard isn't even in alphabetical order! /// 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.
