Wow. Yeah, what are the chances someone would have stumbled on that bug? :)
- Aaron On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aaron Bohannon wrote: > >> I apologize. I couldn't reproduce my problem either...because I >> apparently left out a critical piece when condensing my much larger >> example. The real problem seems to also involve 'opfunc'. If you >> source the following function definitions and mappings, you will see >> that -$ and +$ inexplicably behave differently. >> >> I tested it on Vim 7.3 (with patches 1-244,246-462) on OS X (10.7) and >> Vim 7.3 (with patches 1-62) on Linux (kernel 2.6). In both cases, I >> ran vim in a terminal, using the command line "vim -u NONE -NX". >> >> - Aaron >> >> ---- >> function Foo1(type) >> set ve=onemore >> silent execute "normal! `[v`]dix\e" >> set ve= >> endfunction >> >> function Foo2(type) >> set ve=all >> silent execute "normal! `[v`]dix\e" >> set ve= >> endfunction >> >> nmap - :set opfunc=Foo1<cr>g@ >> nmap + :set opfunc=Foo2<cr>g@ >> ---- > > Still can't reproduce it, both -$ and +$ do the same thing. Oh wait, > the -X argument is essential. Weird. > > OK, I tracked it down. I'll send out a patch. A workaround is to set > 'virtualedit' to "all,onemore" instead of "all". > > -- > hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: > 269. You receive an e-mail from the wife of a deceased president, offering > to send you twenty million dollar, and you are not even surprised. > > /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- 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_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
