Yeah, nice catch on the twiddle bug. This looks pretty good. Anyone else try
it?
-kj
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Henri Kemppainen wrote:
> > Looks pretty good. I might add an undo boundary
> > around the whole thing (I note emacs doesn't do this
> > properly, at least on the version I hav
> I'm afraid simply adding the the undo boundary around newline()
> will break yank(), which sets its own boundary and calls newline()
> among other changes. If we want this undo stuff, then we probably
> should add checks such that none of these functions set boundaries
> if they were disabled (b
> Looks pretty good. I might add an undo boundary
> around the whole thing (I note emacs doesn't do this
> properly, at least on the version I have here)...
I like it. If undo is a concern, then it might be a good idea to
check the other functions while we're here.
I found at least the following
Good grief. Who builds emacs? Half of the point of mg is to avoid doing
exactly that! ;)
(The version I have here is 22.1.1.)
By the way,if anyone looking for free commits, there are a bunch more
missing undo boundaries in mg. I haven't yet had a chance to chase them all
down properly...
-kj
On
Kjell Wooding wrote:
> I might add an undo boundary around the whole thing (I note
> emacs doesn't do this properly, at least on the version I have
> here)...
Undoing join-line works fine with the emacs version I am using
here. Built 2 days ago, from git.
~% emacs --version
GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1
Looks pretty good. I might add an undo boundary
around the whole thing (I note emacs doesn't do this
properly, at least on the version I have here)...
like so:
Index: def.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/mg/def.h,v
retrieving revisio
