Hi!
Speaking of this " W' indicator, why was it chosen to _add_ it to the '[N/M]' string instead of _prepending_ "W " before one?
The point is, if _appended_, then at the moment of wrapping, the expected position of '[N/M]' changes slightly to the left, which isn't exactly nice (like, why the information is jumping in front of our eyes, etc). While if _prepended_, the counter itself stays exactly where it was, and only this sign "W" appears on the left. Don't know if I'm right or wrong here but I personally certainly like the prepended option better.
If you agree, then here's a patch for src/search.c, which seems to fix it (I'm not a programmer, I also don't know ANYTHING about C at all, and these few lines here may be completely wrong and stupid, so, please, feel absolutely free to change it if needed):
====
5014c5014,5017
< STRCPY(t + len, " W");
---
> char t_tmp[len + 2];
> STRCPY(t_tmp, t);
> STRCPY(t + 0, "W ");
> STRCPY(t + 2, t_tmp);
====
--
ds
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:30:12 PM UTC+1, Christian Brabandt wrote:
-- Speaking of this " W' indicator, why was it chosen to _add_ it to the '[N/M]' string instead of _prepending_ "W " before one?
The point is, if _appended_, then at the moment of wrapping, the expected position of '[N/M]' changes slightly to the left, which isn't exactly nice (like, why the information is jumping in front of our eyes, etc). While if _prepended_, the counter itself stays exactly where it was, and only this sign "W" appears on the left. Don't know if I'm right or wrong here but I personally certainly like the prepended option better.
If you agree, then here's a patch for src/search.c, which seems to fix it (I'm not a programmer, I also don't know ANYTHING about C at all, and these few lines here may be completely wrong and stupid, so, please, feel absolutely free to change it if needed):
====
5014c5014,5017
< STRCPY(t + len, " W");
---
> char t_tmp[len + 2];
> STRCPY(t_tmp, t);
> STRCPY(t + 0, "W ");
> STRCPY(t + 2, t_tmp);
====
--
ds
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:30:12 PM UTC+1, Christian Brabandt wrote:
On Do, 29 Aug 2019, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> (I like the [N/M] index, but I also think the W is way too subtle, and I
> find myself looping again and again.)
When the N/M index was first introduced, it did show the error message
and forced a small delay to make sure it can be read before the N/M
index would potentially overwrite it. However people complained about
vim being unresponsive, so it was changed and the 'W' indicator was
added as a compromise.
Best,
Christian
--
Jeder Tag an dem du nicht lächelst, ist ein verlorener Tag.
-- Charlie Chaplin
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/d3b45657-181c-43cb-ae37-b2b300dcd01d%40googlegroups.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment