On 8 Aug 2011, Frank Fischer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 12:32:06AM +0200, Michael Markert wrote: >> I'm very excited to get away from viper and you really did a nice job >> with evil. Thank you! > > You're welcome, but don't hesitate to say this again ... ;)
Well then: I f*ckin love the prefix :D >> * Input-Method-Handling is missing > > Well, that's right. Input methods have to be deactivated in normal and > visual-state but should be active in operator-pending state. We have > to work on this ... I think my code does that already. But I'm not sure how robust it is. The handling in viper looks quite messy so I rather not copy it. >> * evil-states are no good default > This can be argued. Almost all modes that I use are editing modes and > for me it is easier to have evil come up in normal-state as default. > Perhaps we could add a switch to select the default for all modes that > are listed in none of those mode-lists (and add > `evil-normal-state-modes' as well). Of course, the best possibility > would be to detect whether the current major-mode is indeed an editing > mode, but I have no good idea how to accomplish (one, could, e.g., > detect whether the mode is derived from text-mode, but this is not > true for all editing modes). I like the idea to user-define the default, because it's highly dependent on the user, as you mentionend. > Another useful feature could be to define a new (ex-?)command (e.g., > :set-evil-default) to change the default mode for the current > major-mode. I had something like this in vim-mode and it worked quite > well. This way the users do not have to change their config by > manually editing the file but the customization is changed > (semi-)automatically. I keep my config under version control and don't like them changed automatically, but I think that's a nice feature to have, though. > In my opinion (I do not know about Vegard?) the only thing missing is > ex mode. I hope I can finish it by the end of this week, but we will > see. Besides evil contains already all featues a want for the 1.0 > release. This means the most urgent things are finding bugs, missing > key-bindings and commands/motions that really should go into 1.0 (and, > of course, someone has to deal with input-method stuff ... ;)). Well then I'll take a deeper look at the input-method stuff ;) > Furthermore there are the tedious tasks like writing the > documentation. The public api should be fixed (and we should define > what belongs to the public api and must therefore not change for 1.x), > packages for elpa (or so) have to be created. I noticed the PDF documentation but there are no sources in the repository: What's the format of choice to generate the docs? From the PDF I'd deduce it's LaTeX, but where is the source? [1] > So the best everyone can do is to use evil in the daily work and > report bugs and missing features (send patches, if possible), tell us > what is really missing and praise the developers. Sure will do! I think I already got 2 Bugs, I'll carry those to the issue tracker. Michael Footnotes: [1] As Texinfo would be nice to have (info files), there's pandoc[2]. But I've not yet worked with it and don't know how well it supports LaTeX (it says a subset). [2] http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/
pgpef5V254pDj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
