You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I understand that evil aims to be compatible with Vim, but it should also respect the built-in facilities that Emacs provides, such as the syntax tables, similar to the category tables used a couple lines above.
It seems to me, that these two lines in question handle the case of a non-word non-whitespace character. There exist Emacs character classes for both of those. Would it be fine to replace this with it?
Thanks,
Kim
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From what I gather, by default, the difference between (evil-forward-syntax "^w->" cnt) and (evil-forward-chars "^[:word:]\n\r\t\f " cnt) is the inclusion of Control characters C-@-C-h (ASCII 0-8). Is their inclusion problematic? If so, maybe a compromise would be to remove them from the syntax entry for the duration of the command.
Say we open a scratch buffer with the following contents:
We run
Now
(describe-syntax)
showsand
(describe-categories)
showsSo now
SPC
and_
are equivalent for Emacs.Running
(forward-word)
twice in each line indeed leads to the same movement.But if we use Evil
(evil-forward-word-begin)
, the movements in the two lines differ, needing three movements in the first line and two in the second.I have identified the cause to be this line:
evil/evil-common.el
Line 1556 in c222ce1
I understand that evil aims to be compatible with Vim, but it should also respect the built-in facilities that Emacs provides, such as the syntax tables, similar to the category tables used a couple lines above.
It seems to me, that these two lines in question handle the case of a non-word non-whitespace character. There exist Emacs character classes for both of those. Would it be fine to replace this with it?
Thanks,
Kim
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: