From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32332-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 362 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2014 15:44:07 -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: 32332
Received: (qmail 24212 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 15:44:01 -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-b7fc96d000004885-90-52ebc2637746
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:33:55 +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: <20140131153355.4a6ded39@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <140131071944.ZM25045@torch.brasslantern.com>
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>
 <140131071944.ZM25045@torch.brasslantern.com>
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/4Vd3kQ6+DDOZsELU42PyQyYHRY9XB
	D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGe0/NzMV9LFX7FjYwdLAuI+1i5GTQ0LAROJx9292CFtM4sK9
	9WxdjFwcQgJLGSWmL21lgXCWM0l8XXuECaSKRUBV4u+nmywgNpuAocTUTbMZQWwRAXGJs2vP
	g8WFBWwlzv9eA7aBV8Be4unpV0BTOTg4BawkHs8IgpjZxyKxe/M6sF5+AX2Jq38/MUFcYS8x
	88oZRoheQYkfk++BzWQW0JLYvK2JFcKWl9i85i3zBEaBWUjKZiEpm4WkbAEj8ypG0dTS5ILi
	pPRcI73ixNzi0rx0veT83E2MkCD8uoNx6TGrQ4wCHIxKPLyK+18HCbEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh
	5SoDCvGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamCc8E+N/dytredPK9gtNeBYssT39F/fusz5PyKW
	nbnyZjW74o4Yz2ePjl39fGB+4y99joioQ647zwls/XwrYK7m7F5HzhCuT1aL+9cKpa1f8G7H
	Ts/1F1umW7dtttFuXFsV6HNFobdOISViq9jSaTdOlajO95LtWs+15ilDfc1kHvOabQUPLC8+
	U2Ipzkg01GIuKk4EAHesAtEgAgAA

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:19:44 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, I'm going to assume both patches are wanted if I don't hear
disagreement.

pws