On 10/20/06, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/12/06, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [rearranged] > > I have once again edited the relevant function, when moving/deleting > > to the left, the boundary character should never be deleted/moved > > past. But I am beginning to see a very clear trend that whenever you > > unbreak one aspect, another one breaks. The current implementation is > > doubtlessly not an exception. To save me some time, I have decided > > that I will not consider future suggestions for this function unless > > they contain a decent analysis of common usecases as well as a patch > > to the move_word function to implement the suggested behaviour. Sorry. > > Thank you for the consideration, and sorry for the trouble. I did not > intend to make so much work for you, and I would have been able to > create a patch for this. I think it is a reasonable condition. This > kind of patch is simple enough.
No trouble. Looking forward to a move_word patch, then! :-) > > [...] > > On 10/6/06, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > > On Aug 27, 2006, Axel Liljencranz wrote: > > > > A simpler rule, that will most of the time do what you propose would be > > > > to only lump together a series of _identical_ boundary token. E.g. ' > > > > ' is a single boundary, but ' ~. ./' is 6 boundaries. > > > > > > I find this a much more intuitive and useful behavior for "delete-word". > > > > > > The other one is "delete consecutive characters that belong to the > > > same set", where each character is in one of three sets: alphanumeric, > > > whitespace, or boundary. This is how Vi works. > > > > > > Emacs and Bash work somewhat opposite of Fish. All chars up to an > > > alphanumeric char, then up to a non-alphanumeric char, are deleted. > > > > > > > They do, but they don't allow you to delete one directory level in a > > path, for example, which I often find quite useful. And because I got > > into the hornets nest of adding this third level, we have a much > > harder time of defining a sane criteria. I am still hoping that we > > will get a rule that is more useful than the one in bash, but it is > > far harder than I initially thought. > > You do not want to focus on this any more, and that is fair enough. I > am just curious to understand what problem you found with deleting a > directory level. That's exactly what I find easy in Bash's > delete-word: ^w deletes to the next directory level; unless the file > name contains boundary characters, in which case you will have to > press Backspace and/or ^w again. None of the methods we discussed > avoid that. My bash deletes to whitespace on ^W, so all directory levels are munched in a single go. Fish does stop at '/', which I would have thought was what you wanted. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I have no clue what it is. -- Axel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
