On Tue 23-12-08 20:58:44, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > Milan Vancura wrote: > > > > Milan, did you read the earlier post? It seems to deal with that. > > > > Thank you for the reference, Ian. I made O(n) variant, two patches follows > > as > > attachemnts. Bram, are they OK for you, please? > > > > The first one fasten the join operation, the second one removes do_do_join() > > function as it is no longer needed. They are separate to allow to accept > > just > > the first one if API change is not allowed etc. > > Thanks for the patch.
Thank you for a quick reaction, Bram. > I haven't looked into the details, but you should at least use spaces > like in the rest of the code. OK. I was under time press as this was my last time for the development before Christmass. I tried to use the same code-style as I saw around but I must say I didn't do any exact checks about that. I check it again after Christmass. > Did you do "make test"? Test 29 should be extended with joining > multiple lines. Currently it does one line at a time only. Up to this moment I did manual tests for different cases of joins: + called via do_join and do_do_join + with 'compatible' set and not set + with different line endings to check proper spacing (after '.','?' and '?' etc.) + with and without marks set in the range of joined lines ++ combinations of all above Everything worked exactly with the same result as plain vim 7.2+70 (only the speed was different, of course). I look at test 29 after Christmass as well. Thank you once again for a quick reaction, Bram. Milan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
