On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Charles E Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben Fritz wrote: >> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:33:04 AM UTC-6, Christian Brabandt wrote: >>> Having said that, I personally don't like the <restore> argument as >>> well. Perhaps we could use a new command modifier like >>> :keeppos windo ... >>> >>> That could be useful for other commands as well. >>> >> I like that idea better as well. >> > I, too, like the "keeppos" (short for keepposn?) command modifier. > > I agree that one shouldn't change the default behavior due to backwards > compatability considerations. My own plugins typically do a > save&restore position and so wouldn't be affected by whether or not that > default behavior changed.
It would not make sense for a plugin to depend on the current behavior because the current behavior is unpredictable: if an error occurs the cursor could end up anywhere; and the contents of each buffer are unpredictable. So again I ask, can anyone name one reasonable, realistic scenario where a plugin would break by fixing this long-standing pain-point? I think that "backwards compatibility" has become the easy way out of giving extra thought to making the occasional bold decision in favor of usability. --- Justin M. Keyes -- -- 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.
