On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:49, StarWing<weasley...@sina.com> wrote: > On 7月17日, 下午4时39分, Nikolai Weibull <n...@bitwi.se> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:00, StarWing<weasley...@sina.com> wrote: >> > IMHO, Vim has several issues: >> > - it has separate Eval system and Inner implement. so you can't >> > simply use script to hand all state of Vim. >> It’s not as flexible as elisp, no. > But it can be. No, not really. Not until it gets things like real anonymous functions, access to a lot more low-level stuff, and so on. I once wrote a patch to add a getpwnam() wrapper. Bram rejected it on the basis that it wouldn’t be useful enough to warrant the addition. I don’t agree, as I needed it for ftplugin/changelog.vim, but I respect his view on it. >> True, but, as already stated, fixing that is going to basically >> require a complete overhaul of the Vim source code. > that's really a long boring job, is it? Yes? > But Why you can use perl patterns to match paren? because it support > recursive in pattern, and you can integration codes into patterns. You’re talking about Perl 6’s grammar functionality. They’re definitely not regular. >> > and file pattern & text pattern has different format. >> >> So? That’s to be expected. > That makes code complex, maybe a interchangeable flexable regex engine > is better? How much code can there be that handles the file pattern stuff? Matching file patterns is easy. > Is it important in your mind? I think it's funny and powerful. Without semantics, syntax is unimportant. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
