leap.nvim
leap.nvim copied to clipboard
Defaults: make `<Plug>(leap-forward)` inclusive
Pro
The choice between inclusive/exclusive is kinda arbitrary; but some valid reasons for inclusive could be:
- Consistency between Visual and Operator-pending mode (for example, to surround a given range, you should target the same pair in both modes).
- Selecting till the end of the line would be no special case (
ysX<space>instead ofyvsX<space>).
Notes:
-
At this point, Sneak compatibility shouldn't matter much.
-
It's also arbitrary whether we follow
/(exclusive) orft(inclusive). I don't think there's more reason to conceptualize the bigram jump by Sneak/Leap as "/with constraints", rather than "enhancedft".
Con
- Breaking change.
Related discussion: https://github.com/justinmk/vim-sneak/issues/83.
There is also an interesting idea there: o_v = 2-char inclusive/exclusive switch (problem: surprising behavior, with no precedent, needs extra documentation)