Carlo Baldassi wrote:
I just realized that the keepjumps! patch I sent is not working correctly
under some circumstances.
A single backup list is not sufficient, it really needs to keep a stack of
them in order to work properly.
I'll make a new patch in a short while (unless I'm told it has
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Yes, I had that thought as well. However, as also clearly stated in the
documentation of lockmarks, the major drawbacks of this model are 1) not
adjusting for line insertions / deletions 2) the possibility of making the
command you're calling non-functional, it that
Hello!
I'm wondering about how the patch(es) work -- is it a saverestore or is
it a prevent-any-modification? I'm in favor of saverestore;
prevent-any-modification is certainly going to cause problems.
Hi!
The lockjumps patch (filename: lkjcmd_patch.txt) does a
prevent-any-modification
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Hello!
I'm wondering about how the patch(es) work -- is it a saverestore or is
it a prevent-any-modification? I'm in favor of saverestore;
prevent-any-modification is certainly going to cause problems.
Hi!
The lockjumps patch (filename: lkjcmd_patch.txt) does a
I just realized that the keepjumps! patch I sent is not working correctly
under some circumstances.
A single backup list is not sufficient, it really needs to keep a stack of
them in order to work properly.
I'll make a new patch in a short while (unless I'm told it has zero chance
of getting
On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 10:18:23 PM UTC+2, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Ben Fritz wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 8:57:38 AM UTC-5, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Ok, here is my attempt at a recursive version of the keepjumps command.
It's called lockjumps, and works
Ben Fritz wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 8:57:38 AM UTC-5, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Ok, here is my attempt at a recursive version of the keepjumps command.
It's called lockjumps, and works in the same way as keepjumps except that:
1) it's recursive
2) it
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 8:57:38 AM UTC-5, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Ok, here is my attempt at a recursive version of the keepjumps command.
It's called lockjumps, and works in the same way as keepjumps except that:
1) it's recursive
2) it only locks the jumplist, it
Carlo Baldassi wrote:
Ok, here is my attempt at a recursive version of the keepjumps command.
It's called lockjumps, and works in the same way as keepjumps except that:
1) it's recursive
2) it only locks the jumplist, it does not affect the marks list
Again, it seems to work as intended,
On May 27, 2015 2:28 AM, Carlo Baldassi carlobalda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 3:50:06 AM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote:
In your implementation, you could save the './'^/jumplist/changelist
and then restore it after the script ends. This would allow plugins to
use marks
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:00:30 PM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote:
I thought about alternative ways to achieve the same effect but I can't see
any simpler way to keep that guarantee (which is essential in my opinion).
This is the major point on which I'd like to have feedback. Is
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 3:50:06 AM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote:
In your implementation, you could save the './'^/jumplist/changelist
and then restore it after the script ends. This would allow plugins to
use marks et. al. as needed but the user can use :keepjumps! to
prevent side effects
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:52:16 PM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote:
But why can't keepjumps be made recursive instead?
That's the first thing I thought too. Of course it would break existing code,
so it should be something else, perhaps keepjumps!. But it also seemed a more
complicated and
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Carlo Baldassi carlobalda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:52:16 PM UTC+2, Justin M. Keyes wrote:
But why can't keepjumps be made recursive instead?
That's the first thing I thought too. Of course it would break existing code,
so it should
Ok, here is my attempt at a recursive version of the keepjumps command.
It's called lockjumps, and works in the same way as keepjumps except that:
1) it's recursive
2) it only locks the jumplist, it does not affect the marks list
Again, it seems to work as intended, make test passes and valgrind
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Carlo Baldassi carlobalda...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, I have some code[1] which uses the matchit.vim plugin, which:
1) doesn't use keepjumps internally (this may be seen as a plugin bug, and I
sent a patch[2] to the author to do that).
2) calls m' on the
Hi,
First, my use case: I'd like to be able to invoke functions or commands
(particularly some which I didn't write, e.g. from other people
plug-ins/scripts) and not have them update the jump list. The keepjumps
command is not sufficient in this regard, because it does not act recursively.
17 matches
Mail list logo
