Re: Not sure if bug, accurate message, or whether there's a better way

Tim Chase wrote:

> Issued the following
>
> $ vim -u NONE
>
> then did
>
> o<ESC>u<c-o>
>
> This gave me an E19 ("Mark has invalid line number").
>
> In contrast, starting a bare vim
>
> $ vim -u NONE
>
> and just using
>
> <c-o>
>
> doesn't balk, even though there's also no valid previous-line-number
> to jump to.
>
> My gut says the two should behave the same. Either both should E19,
> or neither should.
>
> I'm also not sure what to do with it other than to mention the
> peculiarity and let core devs take a crack at why there
> should/shouldn't be some sort of difference.
>
> No big deal, just a minor bugaboo/wart I encountered.

It looks correct. The "u" command sets a mark and then in this case
deletes the line that the mark is on. Thus you can't go back there.

--
How To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity:
7. Finish all your sentences with "in accordance with the prophecy".

/// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@Moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

--
--
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/202007141954.06EJsuU43141105%40masaka.moolenaar.net.