feat(jump)!: make dot-repeat jumping separate from regular jumping#2284
feat(jump)!: make dot-repeat jumping separate from regular jumping#2284abeldekat wants to merge 1 commit intonvim-mini:mainfrom
Conversation
|
I am not sure if the extra tests in 'works after jump in Operator-pending mode' are actually needed, as the behavior of |
echasnovski
left a comment
echasnovski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR!
The idea and tests overall look good! The large amount of comments is only there because it is possible to focus on little things :)
echasnovski
changed the title
|
Also, please adjust commit message to fit the new PR title. Dot-repeat is technically not only about changes (yank can be dot-repeated under some circumstances, for example). |
Indeed. However, as I understand this PR, the title should be: "ensure dot-repeat jumping is not affected by regular jumping" |
echasnovski
changed the title
It goes both ways. And it is also a breaking change. So updated to be "make dot-repeat jumping separate from regular jumping". |
abeldekat
force-pushed
the
fix_jump_dot_repeat
branch
2 times, most recently
from
968a78c to
ab80866
Compare
abeldekat
force-pushed
the
fix_jump_dot_repeat
branch
from
ab80866 to
db511f6
Compare
lua/mini/jump.lua
Outdated
|
|
||
| -- If dot-repeating the state needs to be restored after the jump | ||
| local state_snapshot | ||
| if MiniJump.is_expr and not (MiniJump.state.mode == 'no' and vim.fn.mode(1) == 'nov') then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why extra check for the forced charwise mode is needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@abeldekat, this question was not resolved. This extra check doesn't feel like a good solution to any problem it is meant to solve.
|
I pushed the new commit |
abeldekat
force-pushed
the
fix_jump_dot_repeat
branch
from
db511f6 to
75904bd
Compare
abeldekat
force-pushed
the
fix_jump_dot_repeat
branch
from
75904bd to
ee59e3a
Compare
2 participants
Resolve #2054