Vimpulse and vim-mode

Tim Harper timcharper at
Tue Mar 1 18:41:01 CET 2011

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Frank Fischer
<frank.fischer at> wrote:
> I really like the idea of making operators as close to usual emacs
> commands as possible. This is certainly possible for character motions,
> but how do you tell which kind of motion the region belongs to? Call
> different commands depending on the type? Modify point and mark? The
> latter is possible for character and linewise motions, but what about
> block? Furthermore modifying point and mark may be problematic. Several
> commands have rules where to place point after execution depending on
> the original position of point (before modification to respect the
> visual region).

I really like this as well. With the original vimpulse (before Vegard
got involved? My first experience with vimpulse was from a version
posted to the Emacs wi) you had two separate regions, one for vimpulse
visual mode and one for emacs.  This meant that emacs commands
couldn't cooperate with vimpulse commands, and I personally found that
totally repulsive.  I really like how vimpulse's visual mode operates
now, it's wonderfully implemented, despite a few minor shortcomings.

Perhaps it's just me, but if it's a choice between interoperability
with Emacs at the cost of 97% compatibility with vim, and 100%
compatibility with them at the cost of reduced interoperability with
Emacs commands, I would prefer sacrificing the vim compatibility.

If 100% vim compatibility were important to me, I would use vim.  I
don't use vim because I enjoy what emacs provides, and prefer to use
Emacs commands and vim commands interchangeably.  I recognize that
many people consider me a freak for doing so, but I just use whatever
makes sense to me at the time.

More information about the implementations-list mailing list