On 2012-11-29 Thursday at 12:55 -0800 Nate Soares wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Roland Eggner > <ed...@systemanalysen.net>wrote: > > Why not reusing or enhancing already established commandline syntax? If “,” > > and “;” are not sufficient for all desired features of range specifications, > > why not just introducing a new separator between line specifications? E.g. > > two adjacent commas “,,”, or a caret character “^” would not clash with > > current commandline syntax AFAICS. This would be easier to learn from > > a user POV. Implementation might require more effort, though. > > I considered that, actually. However, the :call docs contradict this, stating > that the cursor is moved to the first line irrespective of the range > separator. > > I'd prefer updating :call to honor the range separator. This is potentially > backwards incompatible. I think it would be preferable for sake of consistency > with the :cmdline-ranges documentation -- are there objections to this > backwards incompatible change and/or suggestions for ways to work around it?
What backward incompatibility could you imagine, that could not be avoided by proper implementation? -- @all: Sorry for my error posting my previous message twice. @Nate: In every footer of postings in this list I read … “Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.” -- Roland
pgpGruWzNmg6F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
