On Mi, 18 Sep 2019, 'Andy Wokula' via vim_dev wrote:
> So it's ok when `dl' deletes that fold?
No I don't think so. Do you think so because x is expected to work like
'dl' and `l` is expected to move to the next line?
> And `x' is documented to behave like `dl'. So it's ok to add a special case
> for `x'?
>
> Why not fix `dl'?
,----[ :h 'ww' ]
| When 'l' is included and it is used after an operator at the end of a
| line then it will not move to the next line. This makes "dl", "cl",
| "yl" etc. work normally.
`----
Yes, the documentation states, it won't move to the next line, but in
fact dl on an empty line does move to the next line and removes it
(including deleting a closed fold). So perhaps we should fix the 'dl'
behaviour on an empty line and revert the fix above.
Best,
Christian
--
Als Humboldt den Chimborasso bestieg, war die Luft so dünn, daß er nicht mehr
ohne Brille
lesen konnte.
-- Johann Georg August Galletti
--
--
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/20190918162558.GP30959%40256bit.org.
