[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: Paul Fox
Subject: Re: [vile] Quoted motion: (un)bounding of rectangular changes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:57 -0400

marc wrote:
 > 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

well, without thinking too hard about it, i'd say that the
traditional "exceptions" that 'c' causes to word motions should probably
be suppressed when doing quoted motions.  i probably didn't consider
that case at the time -- i think i was picturing quoted motions as
being more like:
since the concepts of "word", "next X character", etc don't feel
as naturally applicable (to me) with rectangular selections.

 > 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.

that feels like a real bug.


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

paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 59.2 degrees)

reply via email to

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