Ben Fritz wrote: > On May 25, 3:37=A0pm, Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net> wrote: > > This is moot though, a file edited by several people is very unusual, > > and if it does happen an undo file won't be very useful. =A0Better not > > enable the undofile option for this kind of file. > > > > I haven't had time to try out the Vim 7.3 stuff. Is persistent undo a > buffer-local option? It sounds like perhaps it should be, so that > users can easily turn it on and off on a per-file basis. Of course, I > would say the same about 'backup', which is unfortunately a global > option.
The 'undofile' option is local to the buffer. Thus you can use ":set undofile" and all buffers opened will use that value, but ":setlocal undofile" will only set it for the current buffer. I have not heard a request for 'backup' to be buffer-local. We do have the 'backupskip' option. Would we need a 'undofileskip' option? And perhaps a "undofileapply" option for the opposite? I think using the buffer-local option in combination with an autocommand will work just as well. If I remember correctly, 'backupskip' was added before autocommands. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 105. When someone asks you for your address, you tell them your URL. /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
