On Mi, 18 Sep 2019, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On Mi, 18 Sep 2019, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > Let's be practical: We fixed something because a user complained and it
> > was clear it had to be fixed. For "x" deleting a line we did not get
> > complaints. And, depending on how you look at it, if "l" crosses line
> > boundaries, it makes sense that "x" does too. Think of editing a
> > paragraph with wrapped lines, then repeating "x" should not get stuck
> > when the line gets empty.
>
> okay fine. I am still worried, that we are possibly deleting a line
> content, that is not wanted (e.g. when virtualedit is active and the
> cursor is on a NUL).
>
> So perhaps it would be better that 'x' in that case works like 'gJ'
> (which does effectively only delete the line break).
>
> And for consistency, we should to translate X to either 'dd' or "-gJ"
> when 'h' is in whichwrap, right?
Sorry, I am wrong, X does already the sane thing on an empty line even
when 'h' is in the whichwrap option. So I am just wondering if perhaps x
should be translated to 'gJ' so it does the right thing, even when the
cursor is after the end of line.
Best,
Christian
--
Das Individuelle entscheidet überall. Wie wenig kann jeder vom besten
Helden brauchen! - Der Dichter gibt überall nur sittliche Momente, die
jeder anwende!
-- Jean Paul
--
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/20190918122518.GL30959%40256bit.org.
