On 1/29/07, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
But to be able to undo/redo, Vim has to know about what changes have taken place, otherwise it can't guarantee that undo/redo will work correctly. nikolai
