Hi Sara,
When you quit vim in X11-based systems, you lose any data that was
copied from vim to the system clipboard. You can find more information
about this bug and how to fix it at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClipboardPersistence.
I'm not 100% sure but I think this is an X11 security measure. So
>> When you quit vim in X11-based systems, you lose any data that was
>> copied from vim to the system clipboard. You can find more information
>> about this bug and how to fix it at
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClipboardPersistence.
>
> I'm not 100% sure but I think this is an X11 security measure.
On 18/06/10 16:15, Sarah Strong wrote:
When you quit vim in X11-based systems, you lose any data that was
copied from vim to the system clipboard. You can find more information
about this bug and how to fix it at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClipboardPersistence.
I'm not 100% sure but I think this i
Thanks for the information! The whole section on x11 clipboard
integration can be found for quick reference at
http://vim.dindinx.net/vim7/html/gui_x11.txt.php#x11-selection
Since this is behaviour declared in the help but not working, it's a
bona fide bug then. I found one confirmation with worka
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Tony Mechelynck
wrote:
> According to the help, Vim does save register + when quitting, as follows:
>
>> *x11-cut-buffer*
>> There are, by default, 8 cut-buffers: CUT_BUFFER0 to CUT_BUFFER7. Vim
>> only
>> us
Can I rely on left to right evaluation?
Is there a problem with this phrase and the order of evaluation?
@b + setreg('b', @l Thanks to a suggestion in vim_use I have "grouped" line numbering working.
>
> It is not a normal sequential numbering, but in groups of n lines.
>
> Example n=2
> (1
> It seems the Windows gVim build (7.2.267) is not affected of this
> issue. All the examples above works well with this langmap:
Yes, I think the issue is in gtk+ behavior. (I even think it's not bug but a
feature since, in general, it allows using sequences like ^).
I've looked through geany s
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:48AM +0200, Dominique Pell? wrote:
>
> Does it happen at start-up when you start Vim with:
> $ vim -u NONE -U NONE
Yes, sure does.
> Or do you need to do anything else special for the crash to happen?
Nothing else that I've been able to determine yet. I'll keep
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
What do others think about removing support for GTK 1? It makes sense,
any system where you would try to build Vim 7.3 should be able to
install GTK 2 libraries. It will clean up the Vim source code.
May I suggest that if GTK-1 is detected, that a message about the
pr
Hi
I found what I believe to be a bug, so I thought I'd check here first to
see if a fix exists.
Here is how to reproduce the bug:
set langmap=dj;hd
noremap dd jdd
Expected behaviour upon pressing jj in normal mode:
move down one line and then delete that line
What I get instead:
delete the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:49:55AM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Do you have this with Vim 7.3a only, or does it also happen when
> building the latest Vim 7.2 with the same setup?
Yes, I was getting the same thing from 7.2.444 out of svn the other day too.
I should point out however that this HP
Paul Ackersviller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:48AM +0200, Dominique Pell? wrote:
>>
>> Does it happen at start-up when you start Vim with:
>> $ vim -u NONE -U NONE
>
> Yes, sure does.
>
>> Or do you need to do anything else special for the crash to happen?
>
> Nothing else that I've b
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Charles Campbell
wrote:
> Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>>
>> What do others think about removing support for GTK 1? It makes sense,
>> any system where you would try to build Vim 7.3 should be able to
>> install GTK 2 libraries. It will clean up the Vim source code.
>>
On 18/06/10 18:38, Bee wrote:
Can I rely on left to right evaluation?
Is there a problem with this phrase and the order of evaluation?
@b + setreg('b', @l
Well, if setreg() returns zero for success, then that zero will be
returned after setting @b to @b+1. However, I expect that the old va
On Jun 18, 12:41 pm, Tony Mechelynck
wrote:
> On 18/06/10 18:38, Bee wrote:
> > Can I rely on left to right evaluation?
>
> > Is there a problem with this phrase and the order of evaluation?
>
> > �...@b + setreg('b', @l
> > Is it a "tricky side effect semantics" as John Little warns?
>
> > Note
15 matches
Mail list logo
