> No, that fix would be good I think - I've removed the BufWritePost
> workaround already (since it does not work with BufWriteCmd).
> Not incrementing the tick in general would make it behave as desired
> then, i.e. the `BufWritePost` handler considers the file to not be
> changed, if it was handled before already.
This is included in patch 8.1.1498. Let me know if you still see a
related problem.
While writing the test, which is in patch 8.1.1501, I made a difference
between "normal o" and "normal otext", so you can see the first tick is
for inserting a line, and the second tick is for actually inserting
something. I think that's OK.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
137. You decide to stay in college for an additional year or two,
just so you can have the free Internet access.
/// 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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/201906091712.x59HC6Mw020364%40masaka.moolenaar.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
