Don't do inference from end to start

[AndreasArvidsson]

take air past line bat should not take line for air
take air past state bat should not take state for air

With this behavior now consistent we probably can just close #8

[AndreasArvidsson]

@brxck @sterlind
What do you guys think about this? @pokey and me have a little bit of different view on this.

I'm of the opinion that you should never do inference from back to front while pokey want it in the case of missing start mark.
eg. take past air
My thoughts is that that is just syntactic sugar for take this past air so it's still inference from end to start.

I want us to reach some consensus about this so I can do the changes. Because the original problem with take air past line bat really bugs me.

[pokey]

So @AndreasArvidsson you're arguing that "take past line air" should select from cursor to the end of line containing 'a', rather than from beginning of current line to end of line containing 'a'? So in your version you'd say "take line past air" if you did in fact want to include the entire line containing cursor? I do feel that while we're using "past", this version is confusing, because it sounds like we want the line after "air". But if we switch to "through" when conformer number bugs are fixed, it's a bit clearer: "take line through air" or even "take lines through air" if we want to support plurals.

Given that the code is simpler this way, I won't push too strongly against it if people feel it's intuitive

[brxck]

I think Andreas's suggestion lines up with what I would intuitively expect.

"through" would be a nice variation as I've caught myself trying to say it before.

[pokey]

Ok cool let's get a couple tests in to make sure I can't sneak my old grammar in here and then merge it in!

[AndreasArvidsson]

@pokey Tests added!

[pokey]

This looks great. Shall we add "take past line air" and "take line past air" before merging? Maybe I missed those?

[AndreasArvidsson]

@pokey Last two test added. Go ahead and merge.