On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:39:23AM +0200, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Marc André Tanner <mat_AT_brain-dump.org> wrote:
> > Also should '.' include the new line character? It seems like it does
> > in vim. Then text_line_next should be used.
>
> I think the behavior should mirror Vim in this case.
Agreed.
> > At the moment if no range is specified the range is set to the whole
> > file in exec_cmdline_command. This should probably be changed such
> > that the commands are called with an empty range. Then each command
> > can decide what its default should be. For example :write should
>
> This sounds like a good idea.
Yes.
> > default to the whole file while :s/foo/bar/ should only be applied
> > to the current line by default.
>
> I noticed that vis behaves differently to Vim when no range is given.
> Considering that I think the use case of wanting to change the whole
> file is more common than just wanting to change only one line, I
> prefer vis' current behavior. Do you want to change it anyways?
The current behaviour is fine by me.
Do you plan to send an updated patch with the discussed changes?
Thanks.
--
Marc André Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0
Received on Wed May 13 2015 - 23:52:52 CEST