Next-word, when it wraps at the end-of-line, will never stop at the
first character, even if it's a word character. This tiny patch fixes that.
This patch is meant to apply after the word-separators patch, though the
glitch is from before that. The word-separators patch merged the two
search loops
Looks pretty good thanks but i probably won't be able to try it until tomorrow.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:13:15PM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > This looks fine apart from a couple of things:
> >
> > - Why is the count a u_long? I don't see a need for it here, let's jus
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> This looks fine apart from a couple of things:
>
> - Why is the count a u_long? I don't see a need for it here, let's just use a
> u_int. Types that commonly change size depending on arch are stupid. In
> fact,
> I might go to far as to say we should put in a hard l
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> This looks pretty good on a quick look, although why do you need a
> backing_written count? Why not write the CRLF after the line rather than
> before?
Well, not a count so much as a flag.
I just didn't like an extra empty line at the bottom. This way we don't
add a li
Either loop round the entire switch if possible or duplicate the loop in each
one (I would move the ?: out into a temporary variable in that case).
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:06:58AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > I'll look at all your diffs in detail later tonight but I
This looks fine apart from a couple of things:
- Why is the count a u_long? I don't see a need for it here, let's just use a
u_int. Types that commonly change size depending on arch are stupid. In fact,
I might go to far as to say we should put in a hard limit of 1000 repeats or
something.
It can't apply only to errors, although it isn't a bad idea.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 01:22:02PM +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > What's the problem? tmux works the same way.
>
> I was really just mentioning ~M~. as a workaround (for the ssh case).
>
> Having said that,
This looks pretty good on a quick look, although why do you need a
backing_written count? Why not write the CRLF after the line rather than before?
I'll try it later tonight.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 05:24:17PM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> This is a code-only patch. I'll submit a separate one for
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> I'll look at all your diffs in detail later tonight but I can tell you now
> there is no way a macro like this is going in :-).
Better suggestion, then? ...I could dupe the for-loop a buncha times,
but the macro looks cleaner to my eyes.
Or did you just mean the first,
I'll look at all your diffs in detail later tonight but I can tell you now
there is no way a macro like this is going in :-).
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32:24AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> > +/* Loop while there's a prefix (or 1, if there isn't one).
> > + * Requires the variable "data", pointing
> +/* Loop while there's a prefix (or 1, if there isn't one).
> + * Requires the variable "data", pointing at an instance of
> + * struct window_copy_mode_data. */
> +#define REPEAT_NUMPREFIX_TIMES \
> + if (data->numprefix == 0) data->numprefix++; \
> + while (data->numprefix--)
Muc
11 matches
Mail list logo
