On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > Matt Wozniski wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > >> I'll make it so that synstack() works when on the character just > > >> after the end of the line. It was already working for an empty > > >> line, thus should also work when just after the last character. > > > > > > Would it make sense to have it work on any character past the end > > > of the line? I don't use 'virtualedit', but it seems like it'd > > > make sense to treat the situation similarly. > > > > I agree that that would be better. At the very least, it definitely > > should be returning a list, though - even if you don't want to make > > all characters after EOL give back the same list, they should at > > least give back an empty list. > > No, if you give an invalid argument it doesn't return a list. If you > want a List, make sure you always pass a valid argument.
What will it return for the character just past the end of the line? Returning the same as the last character just seems wrong (since there aren't any syntax items there). (So I assume that's not the planned change.) But if the plan is to return an empty list, it seems weird to not return an empty list for every character position past the end of the line. (How is EOL+1 any more 'valid' an argument to synstack() than EOL+29?) Or is the goal to just return a list for any column position that could be returned by col()? -- Best, Ben -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
