[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [vile] Quoted motion: (un)bounding of rectangular changes

From: Marc Simpson
Subject: Re: [vile] Quoted motion: (un)bounding of rectangular changes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:00:04 -0700

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Paul Fox <address@hidden> wrote:
> there's an intentional difference between some simple motions and
> their range of action with some operators, in particular the 'c'hange
> operator.  for instance, 'w' and 'e' are different, but 'cw' and 'ce'
> are the same.  this is a replication of long-standing vi behavior.

Agreed re: cw vs. cqwq, thanks for clarifying (I was treating change +
sweep as a completely separate operation). Frankly, I'm finding quoted
motion a tad confusing—some of the issues raised are clearly due to
user error.

One more example:

- cqwwq: only changes the first word
  - The second word motion essentially behaves as l;
  - cq2wq, the most direct analogue to normal vi, works as expected.

Is this as intended? If so, then the only valid issue I've raised is:
d3qGeq, c3qGeq (rectangles).


reply via email to

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