Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place to ask a question to Vim maintainers. My question is about this post: https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/6445
The summary of the post above is “I would like a ‘local to window’ option that pins a buffer to that window”. It’s a great idea however implementing it requires changes to commands in Vim. I was hoping to ask a couple questions. One about Quickfix and a related question about :argdo, :bufdo, :cdo, etc. Quickfix + :cnext related commands For example, if you have a window layout like this: +--------------------+ | | | code | 'nostickybuf' | | +--------------------+ | | | terminal | 'stickybuf' | | +--------------------+ | quickfix | +--------------------+ Where the terminal buffer’s window has stickybuf' enabled and 'switchbuf' includes 'uselast', I changed :cnext and other commands to prefer the last 'nostickybuf' window. But what should happen in that case when there is only one 'stickybuf' window + quickfix window, like this? +--------------------+ | | | code | 'stickybuf' | | +--------------------+ | quickfix | +--------------------+ Here’s some ways I could see a command like :cnext running - 1. Error saying something like “cannot switch buffer because of ‘stickybuf’” 2. Succeed to change to the next quickfix entry, just don’t change the window’s buffer to show it 3. Something else. Not sure what! What do you think of this case? :foodo-related commands (:argdo, :bufdo, :cdo, :windo, etc) Normally running these “do” commands will change a window to view whatever buffer you’re currently acting upon. Like the quickfix commands, I have it set to prefer a window that is 'nostickybuf'. But what should happen if there is no fallback, 'nostickybuf' window to choose? Should the “do” command error? Or should it continue to “do” but not change the window’s buffer to show each entry? I could imagine not changing would cause commands like :bufdo s/foo/bar/c to become more complex because you wouldn’t be able to confirm the replacement in advance. Which led me to think maybe checking for a valid window first before the “do” command runs makes more sense and fail early if there’s no window to choose. What do you think? The quickfix and “:foodo”-related commands are some of the more complicated cases but once we know what the best behavior in those cases are, I’m sure the rest will be easy. Thank you! Colin -- -- 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/CAAg5DL%3DJcp%2B_MwPWXwCHpYJHCjKjSEry4p%3D-A1j8fZnfOAwy9A%40mail.gmail.com.
