Defaults: make <Plug>(leap-forward) inclusive

[ggandor]

Pro

The choice between inclusive/exclusive is kinda arbitrary; but some valid reasons for inclusive could be:

• Consistency between Visual and Operator-pending mode (for example, to surround a given range, you should target the same pair in both modes).
• Selecting till the end of the line would be no special case (ysX<space> instead of yvsX<space>).

Notes:

• At this point, Sneak compatibility shouldn't matter much.

• It's also arbitrary whether we follow / (exclusive) or ft (inclusive). I don't think there's more reason to conceptualize the bigram jump by Sneak/Leap as "/ with constraints", rather than "enhanced ft".

Con

• Breaking change.

---

Related discussion: justinmk/vim-sneak#83.

There is also an interesting idea there: o_v = 2-char inclusive/exclusive switch (problem: surprising behavior, with no precedent, needs extra documentation)