On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 1:27:14 PM UTC-6, Justin M. Keyes wrote: > On Feb 11, 2016 2:16 PM, "Ben Fritz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:58:37 AM UTC-6, Justin M. Keyes wrote: > > > > "gn" is very useful. But to repeat it, user must press "." over and over. > > > Repeating it with a [count] only applies to the count'th instance, > > > instead of repeating the operation [count] times. This is not how f, t, > > > and / work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the current behavior of "gn" with [count] is not useful, I doubt > > > changing the behavior of "gn" would break any plugins. Can the behavior > > > be changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought you were saying "3cgn" or "c3gn" would only edit the third > > occurrence, which I could see being useful and not necessarily surprising. > > "I could see it being useful" applies to almost anything and adds no > information. > > Have you ever used 3cgn intentionally, and been glad that the alternative > behavior is not implemented instead? > > The major use case of gn is to apply an operation in batches. Why insist on > a default behavior which stymies that? >
If the interface was perfect for me, I'd expect "3cgn" to change the next 3 matches, and "c3gn" to change the 3rd match only, because that's something I'd do on purpose from time to time. But to answer your question, no, I didn't realize [count]gn worked this way, especially when combined with the '.' repeat operator, so I've never done that on purpose so far. -- -- 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.
