On Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:17:08 PM UTC+4, Christian Brabandt wrote: > (CC'ing vim-dev) > > On Do, 26 Sep 2013, studog wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:40:47 PM UTC-4, Christian Brabandt wrote: > > > On Do, 26 Sep 2013, studog wrote: > > > > Is this a known issue? Is it fixed in 7.4? > > > > > > When using f/t, Vim gets the following char literally, which means, you > > > don't need <Ctrl-V> here (Since this would mean go to the next <Ctr-V> > > > character). Alternatively, what should also work, is to use <Ctrl-K>CR > > > for entering the digraph character (Character Return). > > > > Okay, known issue. I confirm that "ct" followed by ctrl-m works as I > > expected ctrl-v M to work. > > > > My question now is, why the inconsistency in input mechanisms?
There are basically two types of input: when you type text (command/insert mode) and when you type commands which are easily distinguished (by seeing everything what you type and by ability to alter input before it does something). Commands t/T/f/F/r/gr are very special here as they unlike other normal-mode commands respect &keymap/&im*, but still do not show a prompt. I would say they form their own mini type of input, thus I do not see inconsistency. > Possibly a vi-compatible thing. > > > Why isn't this mentioned in the help? > > Would you mind to submit a doc patch? > > > Should it be fixed to be consistent with "/" for example? To be consistent with `/`: not (explained above). Though as t/T/f/F/r/gr are already too special (dis)respecting <C-v>/<C-k> will not make them less consistent with other normal-mode commands. But if t/T/f/F/r/gr are changed to accept <C-v> and <C-k> it will make them more consistent with other *normal-mode* things like `d` operator: currently t/T/f/F/r/gr are not cancelled by <C-c>. In fact almost everything is cancelled by <C-c>, but not getchar(), <C-w> and t/T/f/F/r/gr, probably something else (do not speak about python here, python+<C-c> is a bug). If they will accept <C-v> then as going to <C-c> will be t<C-v><C-c> and t<C-c> will be freed for “cancel ‘to’ operation”. Also things like t<C-k><< may come handy if you extensively use «». > Well, how would one find a literal <C-V> then? `t<C-v><C-v>` I guess. -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
