James Vega wrote [2011-03-01]:
> > But such redundancy isn't desirable, now is it?
>
> Especially given that the officially sanctioned filetype name is
> markdown, not mkd as used by this script. By using mkd as the
> filetype, you now lose any benefit of the other official scripts
> since you
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:37 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Denis Laxalde [2011.03.01.1632 +0100]:
>> The last version of mkd.vim handles this properly now. Also, the two
>> syntax files can probably co-exist since they have different names (mkd,
>> markdown).
>
> But such redundancy is
also sprach Denis Laxalde [2011.03.01.1632 +0100]:
> The last version of mkd.vim handles this properly now. Also, the two
> syntax files can probably co-exist since they have different names (mkd,
> markdown).
But such redundancy isn't desirable, now is it?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft Re
James Vega a écrit :
> A different markdown syntax file was included in Vim proper for 7.3.
> This handles the described scenario.
The last version of mkd.vim handles this properly now. Also, the two
syntax files can probably co-exist since they have different names (mkd,
markdown).
--
Denis Lax
4 matches
Mail list logo