Mark Lundquist, 19.07.2008:
>
> On Jul 19, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Markus Heidelberg wrote:
>
> > Your patch is malformed.
> > - wrapped long line
>
> No way. My patch didn't contain any long lines!
Sure! Please try applying the patch yourself, before claiming the opposite.
Your changes didn't contain long lines, but your patch did. At least long
enough for your mail program to split it into two:
#define p_term(sss, vvv) {sss, NULL, P_STRING|P_VI_DEF|P_RALL|
P_SECURE, \
> > I stumbled over ap and ip at the text-objects (:h ap), where lines
> > with
> > whitespace are also handled as a paragraph boundary. Isn't this a
> > little bit
> > inconsistent with } and { and the description at :h paragraph?
>
> I agree. ":h paragraph" and ":h text-objects" are not in agreement.
> "h:paragraph" describes the current behavior ("empty line" as
> boundary), "h: text-objects" does not.
>
> You *could* actually view this as a (non-doc) bug; i.e., decide that
> ":h text-objects" is normative, implement my change to the startPS()
> logic but without the new option, and correct "h:paragraph".
>
> So let me know what you want to do here, as long as I'm revising my
> patch. If you want to "fix" Vim so that the current :h text-objects
> does not lie, then I will remove the option, fix startPS(), and
> correct ":h paragraph" in my patch.
I don't know if it's a bug, I rather think it is intended to behave so. Let's
wait for someone who knows it. By the way, this suggested change would break
backwards compatibility.
Markus
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
