Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*

Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*

[Bart Schaefer]

Sorry, no patches this time, just a report.

Starting with:

  zagzig[42] bindkey -v
  zagzig[43] echo this is a line

cursor after "line", type ESC dd P j.  Note that you end up on the line
below the prompt, even though there was no newline in what was deleted.
Now type p.  Note that you end up with:

  zagzig[43] echo this is a line

  echo this is a line

with the cursor between the two lines.  So far 3.0.5 and 3.1.5 have the
same bug.  Type j j, note feep on second attempt to move down a line.
Now type k dd.  In 3.0.5, the blank line is deleted, but in 3.1.5 all you
get is a feep.  The only way to get rid of the blank line in 3.1.5 is to
move up to the previous line and type J.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Re: Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*

[Phil Pennock]

On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 06:15:15PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> cursor after "line", type ESC dd P j.  Note that you end up on the line
> below the prompt, even though there was no newline in what was deleted.
> Now type p.  Note that you end up with:

This is consistent with vi.  dd deletes current line, including newline.
If you type dd on a line /with content/ in a multiline command, that
line is deleted.  Your point about a feep on an empty line is noted.

It looks as though you want dd, when there is only one line, to behave
like 0d$ -- special case it?

HTH
-- 
--> Phil Pennock ; GAT d- s+:+ a22 C++(++++) UL++++/I+++/S+++/H+ P++@ L+++
E-@ W(+) N>++ o !K w--- O>+ M V !PS PE Y+ PGP+ t-- 5++ X+ R !tv b++>+++ DI+ D+
G+ e+ h* r y?

Re: Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*

[Bart Schaefer]

On Nov 22,  3:27am, Phil Pennock wrote:
} Subject: Re: Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*
}
} On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 06:15:15PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > cursor after "line", type ESC dd P j.  Note that you end up on the line
} > below the prompt, even though there was no newline in what was deleted.
} 
} This is consistent with vi.  dd deletes current line, including newline.

Yes, I know.  The problem is not that dd includes the newline, it's that
there's still a phantom newline left behind when the buffer is "empty."
I worded the "even though" clause badly.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com