Absolut position of text objects

[blasco]

Right now we can do "change 1,2,3 previous/next text object". Would it be possible to achieve an absolute reference instead of a relative one, so : "change 1st, 2nd, 3rd, .. text object".

So we could do something like:

function ( first argument, second argument, third argument) function ( first argument, second argument, third argument )

c2a: "change 2nd argument" Achieving the same result in both cases.

[wellle]

This is currently not supported, but an interesting idea. Thanks for bringing it up 👍

[wellle]

Some quick comments on the suggestion:

1. c2a conflicts with word objects c2aw, c2aa, c2ab etc. as it's a prefix.
2. It's not clear if c2a would mean to change inner argument etc.
3. Even the longer form c2aa is already used, for nested arguments, see https://github.com/wellle/targets.vim/blob/master/cheatsheet.md#argument-mappings.

So in order to add absolute positioning we'd need a different syntax, something like ci2fa (change in second "first" argument for example). But even then it's not clear how you could use this in nested args.

[blasco]

You are right, I like your proposal ci2fa would also allow ci2la (change in second last argument). Not sure how to solve the nesting problem, I would propose that it works within the outer level if you are outside, and within the current level if you are inside:

In the following example:

<cursor> fun (arg1, arg2, arg3(subarg_1, subarg_2))

doing cila would change the last argument of fun. iIaA are still available to control the finer behavior.

fun (arg1, arg2, <insert cursor>)

If we would be inside fun, it would have the same effect:

 fun (<cursor>arg1, arg2, arg3(subarg_1, subarg_2))

But if we would be inside arg3:

fun (arg1, arg2, arg3(<cursor>subarg_1, subarg_2))

Then it would affect the last argument of arg3:

fun (arg1, arg2, arg3(subarg_1, <insert cursor>))

I think the "change in first" and "change in last" syntax makes sense. It unfortunately clashes with my cil (change in line), but I prioritize ease of mind rather than number of strokes, so I would consider fine to change that to cicl (change in current line) for example.

Oh, I've just noticed that cil also doesn't work with your default for previous. I personally don't like l for previous and I use nN (I think is consistent with vim's search behavior), but that would be a big philosophy change I guess.