From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32325-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 14125 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2014 15:38:32 -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: 32325
Received: (qmail 26528 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2014 15:38:26 -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 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7fc96d000004885-4e-52ea71ef847d
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:38:23 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: zle: vi mode: wrong undo handling on fresh lines
Message-id: <20140130153823.28a7818c@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <EA3D3D1C-A0E8-4DA0-B10D-5B428A02AB51@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
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>
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/4Fd33ha+CDP49F7Y42PyQyYHRY9XB
	D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGf9ff2Uv2MhecXPPCqYGxvesXYycHBICJhLfNn1lh7DFJC7c
	W88GYgsJLGWUuNWQ28XIBWQvZ5J4/fAJWAOLgKrE69s/mEFsNgFDiambZjOC2CIC4hJn155n
	AbGFBWwlzv9eA1bPK2AvcXbHObChnAKuEvf71rBDDF3MLDFjwTmwQfwC+hJX/35igrjCXmLm
	lTOMEM2CEj8m3wMbyiygJbF5WxMrhC0vsXnNW+YJjAKzkJTNQlI2C0nZAkbmVYyiqaXJBcVJ
	6blGesWJucWleel6yfm5mxghQfh1B+PSY1aHGAU4GJV4eBfkvgoSYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMJ7
	DSTEm5JYWZValB9fVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBUcv04K4dW2cm29T6dvHJyViHWs99EOrOvkVj283H
	j+LlTh0WzzZavCzlu8MbO/n6o6cfMbS/UfjR7NX5/yqnT+sXZZd3l2ovslbdUpY79eLh4zvf
	+njuXik1q01sDZh5KFnZRfVj3i7eCZu8D97M8rHpUD3wV5FTxYgxiIH9UhZTwjff66LHlFiK
	MxINtZiLihMBEBwnDyACAAA=

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:51:10 +0900
"Jun T." <takimoto-j@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
> This is my "trial" to (somewhat) improve the behavior of 'undo' after
> completion.  The patch below is against (git-HEAD)+(patch in 32314 by
> Oliver Kiddle).

Thanks.

> The change in zle_tricky.c is to start a new undo-block when entering a
> completion.
> 
> The change in zle_main.c is to make 'undo' no to bring back the suffix added
> by completion but erased when going back to the command mode.
> (This will also change the behavior in emacs-mode.)
> 
> Or these are just matter of preference and must not be hard-coded but
> configurable?

I think this is probably OK generally since it seems to reflect fairly
intuitively what counts as a change.  With the ability to undo
repeatedly I certainly don't think this needs any more configuration.

It looks very much along the right lines, but I'll let the others
comment.

pws