Re: Bug: Command-line not always erased by :echo
Tony Mechelynck wrote: :echo apparently erases only part of the command-line in some circumstances. After defining the following function function TestForX() let @+ = let x = @+ let @+ = '--' . x redir @ silent reg redir END let @+ = x return (@ =~ '\n+ ') endfunction (which actually tests, not for X but for clipboard usability), :echo TestForX() returns either :echo TestF0 or :echo TestF1. This problem is apparently only cosmetic, since :if TestForX()|echo 'yes'|else|echo 'no'|endif returns :if TestForyes or :if TestForno, not always the same string. So, for some reason, if that function was used, :echo does not erase the first 11 characters on the command-line. If it makes any difference, my 'cmdheight' is set to 2 and I tested this using a Huge Vim 7.2.148 for GTK2/Gnome2 in console mode on Linux, both in konsole (where it takes the true branch of the above :if) and in the Linux console (where it takes the else branch)... I see the problem. When redirecting silently the message column is still advanced and it's never reset. Not avancing the column causes trouble for some lists, so the solution will be to reset the column after the command is done. -- GALAHAD turns back. We see from his POV the lovely ZOOT standing by him smiling enchantingly and a number of equally delectable GIRLIES draped around in the seductively poulticed room. They look at him smilingly and wave. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org/// --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Proposed correction to one helpfile
I suggest the attached help patch about editing the cmdline-window. Best regards, Tony. -- But don't you worry, its for a cause -- feeding global corporations paws. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- *** ../vim72/runtime/doc/cmdline.txt 2009-03-22 20:39:46.0 +0100 --- runtime/doc/cmdline.txt 2009-04-04 09:12:45.0 +0200 *** *** 973,980 EDIT ! You can now use commands to move around and edit the text in the window. Both ! in Normal mode and Insert mode. It is possible to use :, / and other commands that use the command-line, but it's not possible to open another command-line window then. There is no --- 973,982 EDIT ! You can now use commands to move around and edit the text in the window, both ! in Normal mode and Insert mode. However, any changes you make there are not ! permanent: they are not reflected in the command-line history, and once you ! leave the command-line window, they are lost. It is possible to use :, / and other commands that use the command-line, but it's not possible to open another command-line window then. There is no
doc suggestion
If vimscript functions had remark Added in vim7.1.129, it would be useful. For example, if you want to know how portable the script is. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: doc suggestion
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Yakov Lerner wrote: If vimscript functions had remark Added in vim7.1.129, it would be useful. For example, if you want to know how portable the script is. Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but I keep copies of vim 6.4.10 and 7.0.0 around just so that I can look at older runtimefiles and docs and test scripts in older vims. ~Matt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: doc suggestion
On 04-Apr-09 22:21, Matt Wozniski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Yakov Lerner wrote:
If vimscript functions had remark Added in vim7.1.129, it would be useful.
For example, if you want to know how portable the script is.
Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but I keep copies of vim
6.4.10 and 7.0.0 around just so that I can look at older runtimefiles
and docs and test scripts in older vims.
~Matt
I keep old Vim versions (since 6.0), too, and grep the docs for the first
occurrence of a built-in function name. (But I also use these old Vims for
compatibility testing of my scripts.) I totally agree with Yakov that this
would
be very helpful for script writers. I'd love to see these remarks below each
function's help text, with a formatting similar to those {not in Vi} and {not
available when compiled without the +whatever feature} remarks, e.g. {since
7.0}
or {optional third argument added with 7.1.42}.
Manually researching this for all built-in functions looks tedious, but maybe
someone can come up with a throwaway script that extracts the relevant info
from
the patch info / CVS history / git / ...?
-- regards, ingo
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proposed correction to one helpfile
On 04/04/09 19:21, Tony Mechelynck wrote: I suggest the attached help patch about editing the cmdline-window. Best regards, Tony. oops, I didn't scroll far enough. Forget it (or maybe not, if it's worth adding the same warning about one screen height or so upward of where it already is). Best regards, Tony. -- Brain, n.: The apparatus with which we think that we think. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: doc suggestion
On 04/04/09 21:17, Yakov Lerner wrote:
If vimscript functions had remark Added in vim7.1.129, it would be useful.
For example, if you want to know how portable the script is.
The docs are there, it just may be a little esoteric to find them.
:helpgrep \foobar(
or maybe, to narrow down the search,
:vimgrep /\foobar(/g $VIMRUNTIME/doc/version*.txt
will search, in the former case the text of all help files, or in the
latter case only that of the version*.txt helpfiles, for any mentioon of
the foobar() function. If it was added to Vim not earlier than version
4.0, you'll find at exactly at which version and patchlevel that happened.
If you find out that it was introduced at version 6.3.87 you can test
for it by either
if exists('*foobar')
or
if version 603 || (version == 603 has('patch087'))
The latter is useful if, at some point after introducing the function,
an important bug in it (that you care about) was fixed.
If some version of Vim 3 already had the function (i.e. it was already
there as other than a new feature in Vim 4.0.000), then I suppose you
can say by now that it's been there forever, and the only case when
you might still be unable to use it is if you use a non-feature-complete
Vim lacking some optional feature which includes that function. Of
course, -eval versions include no functions at all.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
The only really decent thing to do behind a person's back is pat it.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: doc suggestion
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Tony Mechelynck antoine.mechely...@gmail.com wrote: If some version of Vim 3 already had the function (i.e. it was already there as other than a new feature in Vim 4.0.000), then I suppose you can say by now that it's been there forever, and the only case when you might still be unable to use it is if you use a non-feature-complete Vim lacking some optional feature which includes that function. Of course, -eval versions include no functions at all. VimL scripting was introduced in Vim 5.0, eleven years ago, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vim_(text_editor)#History. Personally, I wouldn't expend more than a few minutes ensuring compatibility with Vim 6.0 (2001), especially if you need dictionaries and other 7.0 features. I think it's a mistake to continue supporting users who run really old versions of Vim or really old operating systems. Their numbers are dwindling and supporting them has real costs in terms of testing and code complexity. Look at the horrendous amounts of conditional code in the C source. If they don't want to upgrade (or can't), they'll have to accept limitations. They certainly have to from other programs. -- /George V. Reilly geo...@reilly.org http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog http://blogs.cozi.com/tech --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
