Victor Toni <victor.toni@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I think the implementor chose the first interpretation. The "drop" >> insn is a relatively recent invention, and back when it was missing >> from the vocabulary, I do not think it was possible to say " discard >> all the rest" without emptying the todo list, so that design is >> understandable. >> >> Now we have the "drop" verb, the latter interpretation becomes >> possible without making it impossible for the user to express the >> former. It might be a good idea to >> >> (1) save away the original before allowing --edit-todo to edit, >> >> (2) open the editor, and >> >> (3) when getting an empty buffer back, go back to step (2) using >> the back-up made in step (1). >> >> Either way, the todo list editor buffer can have additional comment >> instructing what happens when the buffer is emptied. >> > Personally I would like to see your approach (1,2,3) implemented > because it is not destructive. If the user wants to achieve something > different he can retry. Obviously I agree that the approach would be nicer than the status quo. It would not be as trivial as a microproject, but would be a good bite-sized starter-task for those aspiring developers who want to dip their toes in the water to start hacking on the codebase ;-)
