[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] a proposed slight change in behaviour

From: Chris Allegretta
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] a proposed slight change in behaviour
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:35 -0400

On 6/14/14, Benno Schulenberg <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ow!  That is unexpected.  The line now reads:
> "as holding only         Meta the same Control."
> instead of what I would have expected:
> "         Meta the same Control."
> Chris?  What does Pico do in this case?  And if it is exactly
> the same as Nano currently, do you agree that it is wrong?

I'd imaging Pico would treat marked and unmarked cuts as different
things, and nano should as well.  It's not clear to me what the user
is expecting nano to do with two different cut types in the same
buffer, it should not be supported.

> I would like to propose the attached very simple patch:
> reset the cutbuffer whenever a ^K resets the mark.
> Would this slight change in behaviour be okay?
> BTW, Mark, after an undo, the 'placewewant' isn't updated.
> With attached patch applied, try this:
> 'src/nano +12,23 ChangeLog'  and type:
> <M-A>  <^Space>  <^Space>  <^Space>  <^K>  <M-U>  <Up>
> Instead of going from "Control" to "Do", the cursor goes to
> "(get_shortcut)".
> Benno
> --
> - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
>                           love email again

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]