> Having thought about it a bit, it occurs to me that it would be very
> difficult for Vim's g@ implementation to treat movements accomplished via
> user mappings the same as built-in {motion}s. Perhaps that's why only Vim
> {motion}s are considered? In the case of Paredit, Tamas has graciously agreed
> to add explicit normal mode mappings for d), c), etc..., which is an
> acceptable workaround.
No, it is by no means different from motion support in `d` and other built-in
operators. My translit3 plugin has no problems with using motion from
camelcasemotion plugin and it uses `g@` under the hood. So you should search
problem somewhere else.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
