Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 1/29/07, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The idea would be to leave the undo list alone, so that when the undo table gets updated next it'll have a bigger change.What do you mean? From the very short description it sounds like your describing :undojoin.
A "keepundo" would be more akin to the "keepjumps", "keepalt" style of suppressing
some update for the command which follows. Regards, Chip Campbell
