Map uniquely#260
Open
benknoble wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
If a previous mapping using the provided key sequence is defined, the
map will fail. silent! prevents this from being a problem (stopping
execution or displaying annoying errors).
The long-term effect is to avoid overwriting user mappings in the qf
window.
A second solution would be, for each `{map} {lhs} {rhs}` command, to use
try
{map} <unique> {lhs} {rhs}
catch /E227/
endtry
which accomplishes the same effect less concisely.
Author
|
Tagging @ches when you get a chance |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If a previous mapping using the provided key sequence is defined, the map will fail.
silent!prevents this from being a problem (stopping execution or displaying annoying errors).The long-term effect is to avoid overwriting user mappings in the qf window.
A second solution would be, for each
{map} {lhs} {rhs}command, to usewhich accomplishes the same effect less concisely.
This should obsolete #255 because it allows my mappings to take precedence.
On a final note, I considered something like
which basically makes the mapping do
{rhs}and followed by whatever it originally did, but this has the side effect of potentially creating wonky mappings (e.g.,:cclose<CR>:q<CR>) which are not intended. I thus rejected this idea.