vim-patch:9.0.0861: solution for "!!sort" in closed fold is not optimal (#21027)

Problem:    Solution for "!!sort" in closed fold is not optimal.
Solution:   Use a different range instead of the subtle difference in handling
            a range with an offset. (issue vim/vim#11487)

9954dc39ea

Co-authored-by: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
This commit is contained in:
zeertzjq
2022-11-12 07:43:36 +08:00
committed by GitHub
parent 0d7cc5ee85
commit eee9560516
4 changed files with 103 additions and 19 deletions

View File

@@ -3224,8 +3224,6 @@ static linenr_T get_address(exarg_T *eap, char **ptr, cmd_addr_T addr_type, int
char *cmd = skipwhite(*ptr);
linenr_T lnum = MAXLNUM;
do {
const int base_char = (uint8_t)(*cmd);
switch (*cmd) {
case '.': // '.' - Cursor position
cmd++;
@@ -3502,16 +3500,10 @@ static linenr_T get_address(exarg_T *eap, char **ptr, cmd_addr_T addr_type, int
} else if (addr_type == ADDR_LOADED_BUFFERS || addr_type == ADDR_BUFFERS) {
lnum = compute_buffer_local_count(addr_type, lnum, (i == '-') ? -1 * n : n);
} else {
// Relative line addressing: need to adjust for closed folds
// after the first address.
// Subtle difference: "number,+number" and "number,-number"
// adjusts to end of closed fold before adding/subtracting,
// while "number,.+number" adjusts to end of closed fold after
// adding to make "!!" expanded into ".,.+N" work correctly.
bool adjust_for_folding = addr_type == ADDR_LINES
&& (i == '-' || i == '+')
&& address_count >= 2;
if (adjust_for_folding && (i == '-' || base_char != '.')) {
// Relative line addressing: need to adjust for lines in a
// closed fold after the first address.
if (addr_type == ADDR_LINES && (i == '-' || i == '+')
&& address_count >= 2) {
(void)hasFolding(lnum, NULL, &lnum);
}
if (i == '-') {
@@ -3522,11 +3514,6 @@ static linenr_T get_address(exarg_T *eap, char **ptr, cmd_addr_T addr_type, int
goto error;
}
lnum += n;
// ".+number" rounds up to the end of a closed fold after
// adding, so that ":!!sort" sorts one closed fold.
if (adjust_for_folding && base_char == '.') {
(void)hasFolding(lnum, NULL, &lnum);
}
}
}
}

View File

@@ -5555,13 +5555,22 @@ static void op_colon(oparg_T *oap)
} else {
stuffnumReadbuff((long)oap->start.lnum);
}
if (oap->end.lnum != oap->start.lnum) {
// When using !! on a closed fold the range ".!" works best to operate
// on, it will be made the whole closed fold later.
linenr_T endOfStartFold = oap->start.lnum;
(void)hasFolding(oap->start.lnum, NULL, &endOfStartFold);
if (oap->end.lnum != oap->start.lnum && oap->end.lnum != endOfStartFold) {
// Make it a range with the end line.
stuffcharReadbuff(',');
if (oap->end.lnum == curwin->w_cursor.lnum) {
stuffcharReadbuff('.');
} else if (oap->end.lnum == curbuf->b_ml.ml_line_count) {
stuffcharReadbuff('$');
} else if (oap->start.lnum == curwin->w_cursor.lnum) {
} else if (oap->start.lnum == curwin->w_cursor.lnum
// do not use ".+number" for a closed fold, it would count
// folded lines twice
&& !hasFolding(oap->end.lnum, NULL, NULL)) {
stuffReadbuff(".+");
stuffnumReadbuff(oap->line_count - 1);
} else {

View File

@@ -72,6 +72,54 @@ func Test_address_fold()
quit!
endfunc
func Test_address_offsets()
" check the help for :range-closed-fold
enew
call setline(1, [
\ '1 one',
\ '2 two',
\ '3 three',
\ '4 four FOLDED',
\ '5 five FOLDED',
\ '6 six',
\ '7 seven',
\ '8 eight',
\])
set foldmethod=manual
normal 4Gvjzf
3,4+2yank
call assert_equal([
\ '3 three',
\ '4 four FOLDED',
\ '5 five FOLDED',
\ '6 six',
\ '7 seven',
\ ], getreg(0,1,1))
enew!
call setline(1, [
\ '1 one',
\ '2 two',
\ '3 three FOLDED',
\ '4 four FOLDED',
\ '5 five FOLDED',
\ '6 six FOLDED',
\ '7 seven',
\ '8 eight',
\])
normal 3Gv3jzf
2,4-1yank
call assert_equal([
\ '2 two',
\ '3 three FOLDED',
\ '4 four FOLDED',
\ '5 five FOLDED',
\ '6 six FOLDED',
\ ], getreg(0,1,1))
bwipe!
endfunc
func Test_indent_fold()
new
call setline(1, ['', 'a', ' b', ' c'])