@nmjcman101 I'm competing against myself here, but I think I figured out a way to remove the :se ve=all command

Try it online!

Unless you need that for later

Also, now I'm thinking about new features. What if there was a way to jump to a not-yet-existing-column? Something like: mapping n<M-|><char> to :se ve=all<cr>n|r<char>:se ve=""

Or something like that

Before doing that you could just have a one byte :se ve=all but honestly this is the first time I've seen it be useful.

Hm. Just dropping that straight in got me to 97 bytes, but I've done that already with :se ve=all, just haven't edited. Might take a look in a bit to see if either method can be golfed

@nmjcman101 That actually reminds me off a feature I've been thinking about adding for a long long time: Two byte setting commands

The basic idea is that I'd take up to 256 different settings that occasionally save a lot of bytes, and coming up with a unique number for each one of them. Then doing <M-:><n> would turn on setting n.

(Except that 'n' is a specific byte of course)

That would be pretty cool. :se nowrap :se ve=all are the only two I know off the top of my head. It would be nice to toggle too

That also goes hand in hand with another feature I've been thinking about for a long time: Prefilling a bunch of registers/extending the addressable registers

@nmjcman101 Nowrap? Where would that help? (BTW, nowrap is already on by default in V)

In general, I've tried to remove any feature that relies upon the size of the visible window (M, H, L, 'wrap', etc.)

Er.. not nowrap

wrapscan!

@nmjcman101 Oh my gosh, you have no idea how long I've been looking for that feature!

I think about it every time I write a recursive search macro that will never end

One thing that's always annoyed me about that setting is that it doesn't allow you to break a macro with a search

Yeah, that. Ninja'd :)

I've even thought about making <M-n> and <M-N> be the "breaking versions" of n and N. I just had no idea how to implement that

Yeah you can just turn off wrapscan :) it's just a LOT of bytes to do that

Some other settings that might help are autoindent, expandtab, shiftwidth, nrformats

I'd even consider making wrapscan a one-byte mapping. It seems like it would help a lot

I'm not sure what values in registers would be best though. They're probably something I'll build up over a long time.

Yeah I think the setting byte is a good start and then every now and then you'll be like "Wish I had taht in a register!"

QWERTY is definitely one of them

I would never have thought of that but it makes sense for the keyboard you did

It makes sense occasionally, haha. I think jelly has that

That could be a good place to start just rip off other languages one bytes :D

The hard thing about coming up with them is that most of them will be very obscure/rarely used. You just have to think of a lot of weird text-sequences and hope they get used in the future

If it weren't for the range operator, most of them would be alphabetical, digits, etc.

Yeah but range works well for that

I was thinking about some sort of random function like {count}r - makes the count a random number from 0->count

Oh yeah, that's an awesome idea

Unfortunately vimscript is the wrong tool for the job, haha

And another feature that would be nice is sleep for "count" milliseconds

yeah instead of :s500m or whatever

It's :sl but yeah.

I'll make that g<M-s> to go along with gs

And g<M-S> could be sleep "count * 100" ms

oo that's smart. I gotta run. might send a pull req if I get any free time ever..

OK, cool! cya later