From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32331-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 17723 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2014 15:20:07 -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: 32331
Received: (qmail 4485 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 15:19:51 -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: <140131071944.ZM25045@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:19:44 -0800
In-reply-to: <56F5B279-C8C6-47D1-9E20-457E2443ADD8@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
Comments: In reply to "Jun T." <takimoto-j@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
 "Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines" (Jan 31,  9:00pm)
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>
	<EA3D3D1C-A0E8-4DA0-B10D-5B428A02AB51@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
	<56F5B279-C8C6-47D1-9E20-457E2443ADD8@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
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 31,  9:00pm, Jun T. wrote:
} Subject: Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines
}
} $ ls f<tab>
} $ ls foo         # assume there is a file 'foo'
} $ ls foo<undo>
} $ ls f<undo>
} 
} now <undo> will remove the entire command line (the original behavior
} is to remove only 'f').

Hmm.  I suspect we want the additional patch (32330) to restore the old
behavior, but emacs itself considers a string of consecutive self-insert
to be a single undo event (rather than undoing each individual character)
unless there are intervening motions or deletions, so whether this is a
significant problem may depend on exactly how many and what kind of undo
events get merged.