From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25680 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2014 14:58:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32310 Received: (qmail 28539 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2014 14:58:52 -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=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,T_FRT_FOLLOW2 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7fc96d000004885-8a-52e7c5a8a839 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:58:47 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines Message-id: <20140128145847.7204df4e@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20140127161124.2aa16b37@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> References: <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> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4Vd0VR58HGcxYo2xxsPkhkwOjx6qD H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MmZPfMpasJm3YlLDQ9YGxtNcXYycHBICJhIXvrxkhLDFJC7c W8/WxcjFISSwlFFi8oPZzCAJIYHlTBIb+1xAbBYBVYmzFw8ygdhsAoYSUzfNBmsWERCXOLv2 PAuILSxgK3H+9xpWEJtXwF7iyN0dYDangIPErrmvWSEWHGaS2DF3LlgDv4C+xNW/n5ggrrCX mHnlDCNEs6DEj8n3wGqYBbQkNm9rYoWw5SU2r3nLPIFRYBaSsllIymYhKVvAyLyKUTS1NLmg OCk910ivODG3uDQvXS85P3cTIyQIv+5gXHrM6hCjAAejEg/vg+5nQUKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVE eG/tfh4kxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgbH8nvZK1Q3Pt9R4bWk7deGUwn0W7yoW+8xw x98LT6e3O36K8tqW2BGeJfv0OdcSwf2Kc29pWUy+v7XR3fTmBcHIbotbn6MvKn6yULaW8Z2Q ynvvnuGS4q6321T6jpu+ywzclLD3XYrL+w+7Lh14fdbA4JLD9OwNL/m5n10X2h734epKWQOX 76eVWIozEg21mIuKEwFCTZuhIAIAAA== On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:11:24 +0000 Peter Stephenson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:43:01 +0000 > Peter Stephenson wrote: > > > } However, even aside from that, the change doesn't seem to > > > } be quite right: e.g. vi-repeat (dot) can't repeat the initial insertion. > > > > > > Worse than that, vi-repeat forllowing the initial insertion repeats > > > the accept-line from the end of the previous command, thus attempting > > > to execute the (usually partial) current command line immediately. > > I think this is starting to get somewhere, but I suspect it needs > tweaking. For example, should that synthesised 'i' really be an 'a'? > Is it OK to assume we're not in insert mode when vi-repeat is executed? > If it's not safe, I don't understand how it ever worked. Well, I think I'm going to commit it with the "a" because (i) this definitely seems better than what was there before in any case and (ii) hitting "ESC" and "." after typing the start of the line, which is my naive way of getting it to repeat, does repeat what I just inserted because of vi's quirk of backing up a character when leaving insert mode. Obviously I'm not claiming this is the end of the matter. > Some vi user will need to take over at this point. All the action I'm > aware of is in the functions I've changed and if you've looked at the > code you understand it as well as I do. This remains the case. I will not be able to guess what vi mode's many oddities are supposed to do. I'm not hearing much in the way of knowledgeable direction for the completion issue. It probably needs some hook trying out to see if it works. pws