From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15920 invoked from network); 22 Nov 1998 04:07:28 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 Nov 1998 04:07:28 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA18203; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:06:14 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:06:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981121200448.ZM29356@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:04:48 -0800 In-Reply-To: <19981122032724.19517@athenaeum.> Comments: In reply to Phil Pennock "Re: Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-*" (Nov 22, 3:27am) References: <981121181516.ZM28961@candle.brasslantern.com> <19981122032724.19517@athenaeum.> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Phil Pennock , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Bugs in vi-delete and vi-put-* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"NEmhQ1.0.JS4.ssuLs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4682 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu 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