[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] RFC: should cutword overwrite the cutbuffer?

From: Benno Schulenberg
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] RFC: should cutword overwrite the cutbuffer?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:57:40 +0100

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 23:55, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2016 21:57, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > Currently, when using one of the two cutword functions,
> > the word (or part of a word) that is deleted, is entered
> > into the cutbuffer, overwriting anything that it is there.
> > In my opinion this is undesirable -- because pressing either
> > backspace of delete several times does not enter anything
> > into the cutbuffer nor does it alter its state.
> i think it's buggy that the cuts do not accumulate.  otherwise,
> why does ^K ^K ^K ^U put back three lines ?
> > What do you think?  Should cutwordleft and cutwordright
> > leave the cutbuffer alone?
> > 
> >
> yes, cut functions should operate on the buffer.  what you're describing
> is a "kill" or "delete" function, not a "cut" function.

I still think that deleting words should not overwrite the
cutbuffer.  It's just because of the way it was implemented
that this happens.  If it had been easier to do a series of
backspaces or deletes, then that would have been chosen.

So attached patch preserves the cutbuffer when words are
being deleted.  (When the user wants to move what is being
cut elsewhere, she should set the mark, move the cursor,
and then use ^K.)


-- - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

Attachment: forget-cut-words.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]