[Vimpulse] status of vimpulse-connect-undos

Sat Jul 10 22:03:48 CEST 2010

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:42:49AM +0200, Štěpán Němec wrote:
> Stephen Bach <sjbach at sjbach.com> 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".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/implementations-list/attachments/20100710/9cf14afa/attachment.pgp 