On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:42:49AM +0200, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Stephen Bach <[email protected]> writes:
1. What makes undo-tree.el preferable to redo.el, for Vimpulse's purposes?
undo-tree.el provides undo tree functionality. Vim provides undo tree functionality. Vimpulse emulates Vim.
Ah, I guess it's just not something I use in my regular workflow.
2. Is fixing "cw" and friends a priority, or is it something that users of Vimpulse have learned to live with?
I actually like Emacs' undo better, i.e. I like the current behaviour better than Vim's more extensive undo steps -- it's trivial to hit `u' twice instead of once, whereas it's non-trivial (impossible AFAIK) to only undo a part of an undo step. I personally would just get rid of the currently defunct vimpulse-connect-undos code entirely.
OTOH, Vimpulse emulates Vim, so you can argue it should restore the bigger undo steps.
It may be something I could get used to, except I switch between Vim and Emacs regularly and the dissonance becomes apparent. Also, I think I prefer the idea of "cw" being an atomic action as opposed to "dw i".