Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Make "repeat last insert" respect the number prefix #4359

Closed
xJonathanLEI opened this issue Oct 19, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4450
Closed

Make "repeat last insert" respect the number prefix #4359

xJonathanLEI opened this issue Oct 19, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4450
Labels
A-helix-term Area: Helix term improvements C-enhancement Category: Improvements

Comments

@xJonathanLEI
Copy link
Contributor

xJonathanLEI commented Oct 19, 2022

With the current implementation, when you press <n>., the last insert is repeated only once, completely ignoring the number <n>, unlike in vim where it's indeed inserted <n> times.

This feature is useful for inserting repeated characters. I currently work around this issue by recording the insert as a macro, and do <n>q instead, but this isn't very efficient.

I would like to implement this feature, but would love to get a green light from the core team first just in case the current behavior is actually intended. Thanks!

@xJonathanLEI xJonathanLEI added the C-enhancement Category: Improvements label Oct 19, 2022
@Omnikar
Copy link
Contributor

Omnikar commented Oct 19, 2022

I'd say you can go ahead and open a PR for this; the current behaviour definitely isn't explicitly intended.

@the-mikedavis the-mikedavis added the A-helix-term Area: Helix term improvements label Oct 19, 2022
@kosciej
Copy link
Contributor

kosciej commented Oct 24, 2022

I've prepared quick fix for this issue. Took liberty to do that despite original author willing to do it, but I really wanted to have it fixed asap.

I don't quite get why this operation is so special that is handled differently than other commands. I probably need more context on that particular operation.

My main question here would be - is it possible to define this operation as normal operation (maybe like macro), and not as special case?

@the-mikedavis
Copy link
Member

There's a separate issue for that: #1488

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
A-helix-term Area: Helix term improvements C-enhancement Category: Improvements
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants