Re: [bug? doc clarification?] starting position of cursor

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:52:30PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-09-02 20:55, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> > On Di, 02 Sep 2014, Tim Chase wrote:
> > > The documentation for 'sol' does mention "buffer changing
> > > commands" which could ambiguously be interpreted to mean that it
> > > should take effect when a file is opened for the first time
> > > (after all, it's changing from no-loaded-buffer to a
> > > now-loaded-buffer). I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it a
> > > bug, but perhaps an unfortunate inconsistency or documentation
> > > ambiguity.
> > >
> > > And I suspect that anybody who flies with 'nosol' set would be
> > > irked by the behavior much as you mention.
> >
> > I am not sure I follow. What exactly would you call a bug here?
> >
> > I have set 'nosol' in my .vimrc for years and haven't noticed any
> > wrong behaviour.

> To reproduce the OP's issue:

> 1) create a new file with leading whitespace:

> $ echo " x space at the beginning of this line" > example.txt
> $ vim -u NONE example.txt

> 2) notice that the cursor opens on the first non-whitespace character
> (the "x") with a bunch of whitespace to the left of the cursor.
> Cool, whatever.

> 3) create a "nosol" vimrc and try using that:

> $ echo "set nocp nosol" > nosol.vim
> $ vim -u nosol.vim example.txt

> 4) notice that the cursor still lands on the first non-whitespace
> character rather than in column 0 (or 1 depending on how you count).

> My "vim intuition" tells me that in example #4 with 'nosol' set, the
> cursor *shouldn't* move to the first non-whitespace. I'm not exactly
> sure it's a *bug*, but it does run against that intuition and the
> documentation doesn't speak clearly one way or the other regarding
> the intended behavior in this situation. The documentation for 'sol'
> does describe that the cursor should be kept in the same column when
> using "buffer changing commands (CTRL-^, :bnext, bNext, etc.)".

> Additionally, in ":help editing.txt", under the argument-list section
> (with most of the buffer-manipulation commands such as ":wn",
> ":args", ":n", etc), the help says that

> """
> If no [+cmd] argument is present, the cursor is positioned at the
> last known cursor position for the file. If 'startofline' is set,
> the cursor will be positioned at the first non-blank in the line,
> otherwise the last know column is used. If there is no last known
> cursor position the cursor will be in the first line (the last line
> in Ex mode).
> """

> which hints that 'nosol' will *not* position the cursor on the
> first non-blank in the line. It may not explicitly say so, but it
> does does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture
> furtively[1]. ;-)

implying it is not a bug and I must live with the autocommand

thx tim

--
_|_ _ __|_|_ ._ o|
|_(_)(_)|_| ||_)||<
|

--
--
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.