> Having thought about it a bit, it occurs to me that it would be very difficult for Vim's g@ implementation to treat movements accomplished via user mappings the same as built-in {motion}s. Perhaps that's why only Vim {motion}s are considered? In the case of Paredit, Tamas has graciously agreed to add explicit normal mode mappings for d), c), etc..., which is an acceptable workaround.
No, it is by no means different from motion support in `d` and other built-in operators. My translit3 plugin has no problems with using motion from camelcasemotion plugin and it uses `g@` under the hood. So you should search problem somewhere else.
--
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment