From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32318-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 19472 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2014 14:48:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 32318
Received: (qmail 5498 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2014 14:48:11 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <140129064814.ZM22434@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:48:14 -0800
In-reply-to: <4757.1390992613@thecus.kiddle.eu>
Comments: In reply to Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>
 "Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines" (Jan 29, 11:50am)
References:
 <CANWLQWsV5i+=3NptAxir6UYCoipFa2Pk+g6D1DDnMnJMVCbDgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130923213014.15f97f9e@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<3511.1390605547@thecus.kiddle.eu>
	<140125111530.ZM21792@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140127124301.4144f2d9@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<20140127161124.2aa16b37@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<2700.1390950035@thecus.kiddle.eu>
	<140128185946.ZM21512@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<4757.1390992613@thecus.kiddle.eu>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jan 29, 11:50am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
}
} It occurs to me that for a blank line 'o' is just as valid as either 'i'
} or 'a' but possibly more useful.

I like that idea.
 
} > } > Is it OK to assume we're not in insert mode when vi-repeat is executed?
} 
} Having played with this in various combinations, I think we should just
} start virepeatchange() with:
}     if (!invicmdmode())
} 	return 1;

I tend to agree, but I wonder (below):

} > One doc example for zle-line-init still implies you can get into vi
} > command mode by "zle -K vicmd".
} 
} That does skip the code I added and some other vi-change related code
} but I'm somewhat inclined to think it should stay that way

Does "zle -K vicmd" also skip things that would make the invicmdmode()
test (above) either insufficient or incorrect?