has somebody submit this bug? it puzzle me for a long time....
Linda W wrote:
> fritzophrenic wrote:
> > To further confound things, I tried this, in gvim under Windows XP:
> >
> > gvim -N -u NONE
> > aabc<esc>"+yiw
> > :reg *<cr>
> > :reg +<cr>
> >
> > That is, I entered some text, yanked it to my + register, and output
> > both + and *.
> >
> > Only the * register shows that it contains the text, even though I
> > yanked to +.
> ---
> This is consistent with the behavior I called "a BUG".
>
> I also brought up "gvim -N -u NONE"
>
> I edited a file of about 6 lines. Selected a word, "upgrade"
> in middle of one of the lines with the cursor (double click).
> Then I tried dquote-plus-v ( "+v ) and then looked at regs:
> :reg *
> --- Registers ---
> "* word
> :reg +
> --- Registers ---
> Press ENTER or type command to continue.
>
> This seems to be exactly the opposite of what I should be seeing
> (and nothing was in the Windows-PASTE buffer).
>
> I selected a different word (using cursor, double-click), "finish".
> I tried dquote-star-v ( "*v ) and then looked at the regs:
> :reg "
> --- Registers ---
> "" finish
> :reg *
> --- Registers ---
> "* finish
> Press ENTER or type command to continue.
>
> It really seems like dquote-plus-v ( "+v ) puts the selected (visual) word
> into the '*' register.
> And dquote-star-v ( "*v ) places the results into BOTH registers
> (and the windows paste buffer).
>
> Given that 'fritz' (above) and Erik Hahn see the same behavior on windows, I'd
> say there is at least one version of VIM (for 32-bit windows XP) version 7.1,
> that has some weird bug mapping * to + for purposes of this command --
> i.e. "*y yanks to both + and * regs, but "+y only yanks to the "*" reg --
> which
> certainly DOESN'T sound logical to me -- so honest,
>
> I believe that "+y SHOULD yank to the "+ buffer, and that
> "*y SHOULD yank to the "* buffer (which should also assign to "+ on
> Windows), but that isn't the behavior I am seeing.
>
> I have no idea what's going on -- Shouldn't "-N -u NONE" sorta taken
> most defaults?
>
> It's still possible I have some ".vim" file(s) messed up somewhere, but if I
> do, I'm thinking they were distributed that way (since 2 other people notice
> the same behavior)...*-weird-*
>
> I appreciate the help, patience and feedback -- but I'm guessing I really have
> run into a bug (somehow...prog or distributed config files)... If I can
> answer any other Q's about my setup, would be happy....
>
> I know how to work around the prob, but I do have a slightly 'nagging'
> curiosity of why things are nearly opposite the way they are "supposed" to
> be...
>
> :-)
> linda
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
