> Hmm, that is not right, since after this change the second line would be > the terminating quote.
Indeed, but we don't ever see the buffer in that state. > I see. So one would argue that the second change makes the "end" lnum of > the first change invalid, thus the changes would need to be flushed > first. Yes, that's a much more articulate and succinct way of describing the issue. So do you think that the last callback should in fact be two callbacks? Paul -- -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CACoUkn7UxLj%2B-9KV3bNcT4cEgMCDuAp--b1qtoLcxCWnkLKCng%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
