On Do, 26 Sep 2013, ZyX wrote:
> But if t/T/f/F/r/gr are changed to accept <C-v> and <C-k> it will make
Actually, they do accept <C-K>.
> 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
Yeah, they accept <C-C> and try to move there, you need <ESC> to abort
them.
> 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.
But f/t... already get the character following it literally. (It's like
<C-V> has already been pressed).
Best,
Christian
--
Das Tor gehört zu 70% mir und zu 40% dem Wilmots.
-- Ingo Anderbrügge
--
--
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.
