Re: [Nano-devel] a proposed slight change in behaviour

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014, at 19:26, Chris Allegretta wrote:
> I'd imagin[e] Pico would treat marked and unmarked cuts as different
> things,

I've checked, and... it depends.  Cutting a marked section after having
done a series of ^Ks will blow away that leading series.  But doing a
series of ^Ks after having cut a marked section adds the lines to the
cutbuffer.  Doing a ^U then looks messy.  So I still think nano shouldn't
do that.

> It's not clear to me what the user
> is expecting nano to do with two different cut types in the same
> buffer, it should not be supported.

Okay.  So when ^K clears the mark, a subsequent ^K should clear
the cutbuffer.  Yes?

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web