* Bram Moolenaar [230306 15:15]: > Marvin Renich wrote: > > After your change (I'm going by your description; I haven't built a new > > vim to test it), it seems you treat too-large numbers as one more than > > the largest representable number (2^64) for decrement but as 2^64-1 for > > increment, and similarly for too-small numbers. > > Not exactly. The number is rounded off to the nearest representable > number, but the addition or subtraction is not done.
Ah, okay. This is an easily documentable and consistent behavior. I'm happy with it. > I would think that "2 ** 64" appears much more often than "2 ** 64 + 1". Perhaps, or perhaps someone was just testing edge conditions. > For the old behavior a bug was reported, which is an indication it is > not what users expect to happen. The rest of the discussion is > speculating what would be the least-worst solution. In cases like this > would rather go with an actual complaint than speculation. That's a perfectly reasonable approach. Thanks for listening to my arguments for a different solution and helping me understand the reasoning behind your solution. ...Marvin -- -- 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/ZAZQi%2BoZtgA6c5QD%40basil.wdw.
