Ingo Karkat wrote:
> On 04-Feb-2011 21:45, ZyX wrote:
> > There is one compatibility problem for empty v:register value:
> > constructs like
> >
> > execute "normal! \"".v:register."yy"
> >
> > won't work.
>
> Good point. Actually, I was surprised that the following works even with an
> empty v:register:
> execute 'echo @' . v:register
>
> > there is another option: change documentation of v:register to mention
> > that it is always an effective register and add v:regspecified
> > variable.
>
> Right, that's what I proposed:
>
> -v:register The name of the register supplied to the last normal mode
> - command. Empty if none were supplied. |getreg()| |setreg()|
> +v:register The name of the register in effect for the current normal mode
> + command (regardless of whether that command actually uses a
> + register). |getreg()| |setreg()|
>
> I doubt that the need for a separate v:regspecified (or v:register0)
> variable would be large enough to warrant it. I can see it for v:count
> vs. v:count1, but here it would only foster misuse, i.e. using the
> specification or omission of a register for something other that
> setting or getting that register in a mapping. (But my script-writer
> self loves hacks like changing the meaning of a mapping depending on
> whether is was invoked as X or ""X.)
Agreed. This is the simplest and most straightforward solution.
--
Some of the well know MS-Windows errors:
ESLEEP Operator fell asleep
ENOERR No error yet
EDOLLAR OS too expensive
EWINDOWS MS-Windows loaded, system in danger
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.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
