Ben Fritz wrote: > On Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:48:53 AM UTC-5, Jun T. wrote: > > 2014/06/26 23:09, Ben Fritz <fritzophre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Could this be fixed, by using (l2.lnum - l1.lnum) rather than > > > (l1.lnum - l2.lnum) if lines are equal, when using reverse sort? > > > > Well... the change is easy (see the patch below), but I think the > > current behavior of :sort! is a 'feature', not a bug. Changing > > its behavior will break many existing scripts. > > For example, test57 fails after the patch. > > Then perhaps, add a new flag to the sort that would enable this > behavior? I think the ability to chain sorts together to sort on > multiple fields would be a very useful feature.
Yet another flag... But I suppose there is no way to fix the order afterwards. And we can't know what kind of stable sort he user intends. -- Q: Is selling software the same as selling hardware? A: No, good hardware is sold new, good software has already been used by many. /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- 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 --- 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 vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
