Closed Nudin closed 6 years ago
This is documented in :help FileWriteCmd
, and is to allow writing a partial file to disk. This is partly a Vim bug and partly a plugin bug.
For the plugin side, I can change to clearly differentiate between BufWriteCmd
and FileWriteCmd
. This could potentially still be a problem if the user does :'<,'>w foo
and your plugin then changes that '[
and ']
refer to.
The part that's a Vim bug is that you can't (yet) use :lockmarks
to preserve these marks. I've been working on fixing that, but haven't completed the code so I can propose it to Bram.
For the plugin side, I can change to clearly differentiate between
BufWriteCmd
andFileWriteCmd
. This could potentially still be a problem if the user does:'<,'>w foo
and your plugin then changes that'[
and']
refer to.
This sounds like a really good solution for now. Writes in the form of :'<,'>w foo
are really rare compared to normal writes, so this would fix it for nearly all cases.
The part that's a Vim bug is that you can't (yet) use
:lockmarks
to preserve these marks. I've been working on fixing that, but haven't completed the code so I can propose it to Bram.
That seems like the proper thing. But until this reaches users one time – I'd like to have the BufWriteCmd/FileWriteCmd`-split.
Hi,
Thanks for vim-gnupg! I'm one of the coauthors of vimwiki and am using both plugins in combination. Recently I found one serve problem of doing so: vimwiki#556 when saving an encrypted wikipage with a TOC beeing auto-updated the page content is lost.
I looked into it: vimwikis autocommand is called by vim-gnupgs autocommand and seem to run correctly. Then vim-gnupg uses
'[,']write !
to write to gnupg: https://github.com/jamessan/vim-gnupg/blob/22cbc6b6ab1623edd2e325d256245d21580f912a/plugin/gnupg.vim#L749'[,']
is the last changed or yanked text. I don't get why you do this. With a simplewrite !
the problem is gone – but I assume there's a reason for this code?