It might be easiest to copy the gnx of the next child node (if there is one), and then go to that gnx after the delete. That way you wouldn't have to worry about positions changing,
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-5 Félix wrote: > I'll just chime in to say this is not trivial. (although it is good idea > for a bool setting indeed, just that it would require more work than you > would think.) > > Unless it's implemented as a 'macro' cheat that adds a 'goto-next-visible' > operation after a delete/cut command . > > Félix > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:51 PM UTC-5 jkn wrote: > >> Can I raise this nit again? I just hit the (surprising, to me) behaviour, >> and tracked it to #721, which is currently marked as 'won't do'. >> I'm unclear from the conversation above whether this is for 5.7, or >> for all time ... ;-) >> >> Thanks, jon N >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 11:13:38 AM UTC Edward K. Ream wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Edward K. Ream <edre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> I have just created #721 >>> <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/721>. It will add >>> support for @bool select-next-after-delete setting, with a default that >>> will retain legacy operation. >>> >>> > >>> As I write this, it seems that it would be foolish to do this for 5.7 >>> final, but it might sneak in. >>> >>> This item definitely *will not* be included in 5.7. The code changes >>> involving undo are *way* too complex to include at the last minute. >>> >>> Edward >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/f6fcdde3-44a4-40fb-8d30-f241d38f1ab9n%40googlegroups.com.
