Refactor motion.

[jpoon]

Create a base motion class in which cursor and caret extend. The difference between thecaret vs cursor and why I thought it necessitated separate classes:

• Caret's can never have a position that at the very end of the string. Therefore, some of the logic differs when calculating the end of the line.
• Whenever we figure out styling of the caret block, we can place that in their respective class

Another reason for the refactor was to move towards a model of OOP rather than static functions. Additionally, motions are now composable. This makes repeatable actions super easy:

new Cursor().left().left().left().left()

or mix and match:

new Cursor().left().lineEnd().down()

The UI is only updated on the move() command => new Cursor(0, 2).lineBegin().down().move()

[jpoon]

As this is a major refactor, let me know what you think @guillermooo or @adriaanp or @kimitake (as you had done the original work).

[adriaanp]

👍 Love it!

[kimitake]

I strongly agree with to instantiate the cursor/caret in mode class, actually I tried to do when I created caret class, but I needed to modify a lots, so I gave it up :)

btw, do you have a plan to add default argument as 1 for left, right, up, down etc?

[jpoon]

do you have a plan to add default argument as 1 for left, right, up, down etc?

No, you can achieve the same composing it => new cursor().right().right().right().

[kimitake]

e.g. the user inputs "10h", so

for (var i=0; i<10; i++) {
this.caret.left();
}
this.caret.move();

Is this correct? how about 1000G etc?

[jpoon]

Well, 10G vs 100G is the same. I think that logic should be somewhere else as I'm trying to follow separation of concerns. For instance, that sort of stuff should be in like a Repeatable class or what not cause as we'll need to do the same thing not for motions but for other commands too.

[benjaminRomano]

👍