Apparently the second try didn't succeed any better than the first one. This
way you (David) won't need to try a third time.
I'm sending it to vim-dev rather than vim@ because IMHO it's more on-topic for
that list.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: vimshell feature? [oops]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
oops, I meant to send that vim@vim.org ... stand by
as I resend ...
--- David Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "A.J.Mechelynck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Thompson wrote:
> > I've been playing with ':vimshell' command from
> >
> > http://www.wana.at/vimshell/
> >
> > and was wondering what the current opinion is
> > about officially adding a shell feature into vim.
> >
> > Please please, Bram, can you add this to vim?
> >
> > (*ducks for cover*)
>
> I think you're right to duck for cover: AFAIK, Bram's standing on that matter
> has not changed for years and is not going to change overnight: see ":help
> design-not".
Yeah, I recall some of that history.
But Vim windows are a viewport onto a buffer, and just because
the buffer is being filled with text from shell commands, and I
can input commands into that buffer that are executed by a shell,
well ...
It just seems like vim is becoming extremely powerful and
customizable enough that *it should be able* to handle the
simple thought extension that a window is a viewport onto
a shell (or debugger) session, kinda like the thought process
of what this vimshell patch tries to do.
Besides, Bram's argument is antiquated. Vim has become bloated
to the point of interfacing with everything else under the sun,
such as perl, python, c-scope ... and, mind you, there exists
feature.h which can DISABLE these cool bloated things which
are pet projects and wonderful features for their believers.
So, why not interface vim with a shell? Then, why not add a
#define to feature.h to disable this feature? It seems this
argument of "pinciple" is becoming abused. For those who
spend all day interfacing to perl, python, cscope, etc, it
is a Good Thing for vim to interface to their environment.
I see no difference in this argument in why the shell and
the debugger don't qualify for such interfaces.
(*runs for cover again*)
--
David
Personally I don't feel any need to run bash or cmd inside Vim rather than as
a distinct process. This feeling of mine (or lack of one) may be related to
the fact that I can open any number of program windows (gvim, a shell, a
browser, a mail client, ...) in a Windows or X11 session, and that even in the
non-X runlevels of Linux I can have up to six "virtual consoles" in parallel
(so I can run Vim in, say, /dev/tty2, and a shell in /dev/tty3, and switch
from one to the other by [Ctrl-]Alt-F2 or [Ctrl-]Alt-F3.
Also, I'm not convinced of the portability of shell embedding between Unix and
Windows. Is it worth trying to add a complex feature of dubious utility if it
cannot even be reconciled between the two major Vim platforms? (And I'm not
forgetting the Mac but I don't know it well enough.)
As an unofficial patch (or set of patches), I'm not against it as long as I
don't have to maintain or compile it myself; but I don't see the usefulness of
having it in the "official" distribution (where Bram would have to maintain it
if ever its maintainer disappeared).
Best regards,
Tony.
