/*      $OpenBSD: v_undo.c,v 1.6 2014/11/12 04:28:41 bentley Exp $      */

/*-
 * Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994
 *      The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
 * Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996
 *      Keith Bostic.  All rights reserved.
 *
 * See the LICENSE file for redistribution information.
 */

#include "config.h"

#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/queue.h>
#include <sys/time.h>

#include <bitstring.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

#include "../common/common.h"
#include "vi.h"

/*
 * v_Undo -- U
 *      Undo changes to this line.
 *
 * PUBLIC: int v_Undo(SCR *, VICMD *);
 */
int
v_Undo(SCR *sp, VICMD *vp)
{
        /*
         * Historically, U reset the cursor to the first column in the line
         * (not the first non-blank).  This seems a bit non-intuitive, but,
         * considering that we may have undone multiple changes, anything
         * else (including the cursor position stored in the logging records)
         * is going to appear random.
         */
        vp->m_final.cno = 0;

        /*
         * !!!
         * Set up the flags so that an immediately subsequent 'u' will roll
         * forward, instead of backward.  In historic vi, a 'u' following a
         * 'U' redid all of the changes to the line.  Given that the user has
         * explicitly discarded those changes by entering 'U', it seems likely
         * that the user wants something between the original and end forms of
         * the line, so starting to replay the changes seems the best way to
         * get to there.
         */
        F_SET(sp->ep, F_UNDO);
        sp->ep->lundo = BACKWARD;

        return (log_setline(sp));
}

/*
 * v_undo -- u
 *      Undo the last change.
 *
 * PUBLIC: int v_undo(SCR *, VICMD *);
 */
int
v_undo(SCR *sp, VICMD *vp)
{
        EXF *ep;

        /* Set the command count. */
        VIP(sp)->u_ccnt = sp->ccnt;

        /*
         * !!!
         * In historic vi, 'u' toggled between "undo" and "redo", i.e. 'u'
         * undid the last undo.  However, if there has been a change since
         * the last undo/redo, we always do an undo.  To make this work when
         * the user can undo multiple operations, we leave the old semantic
         * unchanged, but make '.' after a 'u' do another undo/redo operation.
         * This has two problems.
         *
         * The first is that 'u' didn't set '.' in historic vi.  So, if a
         * user made a change, realized it was in the wrong place, does a
         * 'u' to undo it, moves to the right place and then does '.', the
         * change was reapplied.  To make this work, we only apply the '.'
         * to the undo command if it's the command immediately following an
         * undo command.  See vi/vi.c:getcmd() for the details.
         *
         * The second is that the traditional way to view the numbered cut
         * buffers in vi was to enter the commands "1pu.u.u.u. which will
         * no longer work because the '.' immediately follows the 'u' command.
         * Since we provide a much better method of viewing buffers, and
         * nobody can think of a better way of adding in multiple undo, this
         * remains broken.
         *
         * !!!
         * There is change to historic practice for the final cursor position
         * in this implementation.  In historic vi, if an undo was isolated to
         * a single line, the cursor moved to the start of the change, and
         * then, subsequent 'u' commands would not move it again. (It has been
         * pointed out that users used multiple undo commands to get the cursor
         * to the start of the changed text.)  Nvi toggles between the cursor
         * position before and after the change was made.  One final issue is
         * that historic vi only did this if the user had not moved off of the
         * line before entering the undo command; otherwise, vi would move the
         * cursor to the most attractive position on the changed line.
         *
         * It would be difficult to match historic practice in this area. You
         * not only have to know that the changes were isolated to one line,
         * but whether it was the first or second undo command as well.  And,
         * to completely match historic practice, we'd have to track users line
         * changes, too.  This isn't worth the effort.
         */
        ep = sp->ep;
        if (!F_ISSET(ep, F_UNDO)) {
                F_SET(ep, F_UNDO);
                ep->lundo = BACKWARD;
        } else if (!F_ISSET(vp, VC_ISDOT))
                ep->lundo = ep->lundo == BACKWARD ? FORWARD : BACKWARD;

        switch (ep->lundo) {
        case BACKWARD:
                return (log_backward(sp, &vp->m_final));
        case FORWARD:
                return (log_forward(sp, &vp->m_final));
        default:
                abort();
        }
        /* NOTREACHED */
}