Hi,
Would it be possible to make Vim overwrite a backup file only if
the buffer was actually modified? Look at the following scenario:
1. I edit file foobar.txt, make some change and save it.
- the backup file foobar.txt~ is created
2. I edit again foobar.txt, but this time I don't make any
On 10/13/06, David Schweikert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to make Vim overwrite a backup file only if
the buffer was actually modified? Look at the following scenario:
1. I edit file foobar.txt, make some change and save it.
- the backup file foobar.txt~ is created
2. I
While replying to a post on the vim users' list, I noticed a slight
problem. The diff commands set some options, but this is not reported
with verbose set. For example
:e foo.txt
:set fdm=marker
:diffsplit bar.txt
:wincmd wback to foo.txt
:verbose set fdm?
foldmethod=diff
:only
Benji Fisher wrote:
While replying to a post on the vim users' list, I noticed a slight
problem. The diff commands set some options, but this is not reported
with verbose set. For example
:e foo.txt
:set fdm=marker
:diffsplit bar.txt
:wincmd wback to foo.txt
:verbose set fdm?
-Original Message-
From: David Fishburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 October 2006 02:16
To: vim@vim.org
Subject: VimL and Exuberant tags - Suggestions please
I have taken over maintenance of the VimL exuberant tags component.
That's excellent news, thanks for doing it,
On 10/13/06, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benji Fisher wrote:
While replying to a post on the vim users' list, I noticed a slight
problem. The diff commands set some options, but this is not reported
with verbose set. For example
:e foo.txt
:set fdm=marker
:diffsplit
Yakov Lerner wrote:
On 10/13/06, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benji Fisher wrote:
While replying to a post on the vim users' list, I noticed a
slight
problem. The diff commands set some options, but this is not reported
with verbose set. For example
:e foo.txt
:set
Hi,
I got a report on the Cygwin mailing list that the following message
appears when trying to open /etc/hosts in vim:
E303: Unable to open swap file for /etc/hosts, recovery impossible
What happens is this:
/etc/hosts is by default a symbolic link which points to the hosts file
in the
On 10/13/06, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yakov Lerner wrote:
On 10/13/06, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benji Fisher wrote:
While replying to a post on the vim users' list, I noticed a
slight
problem. The diff commands set some options, but this is not reported
On Oct 13 21:16, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I got a report on the Cygwin mailing list that the following message
appears when trying to open /etc/hosts in vim:
E303: Unable to open swap file for /etc/hosts, recovery impossible
What happens is this:
On Oct 13 21:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 13 21:16, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[...]
Below is a patch which works for me, though I'm not sure if it's
complete enough to catch all cases. There's code for OS2 in os_unix.c
which I reused, plus a new definition
On 10/13/06, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I got a report on the Cygwin mailing list that the following message
appears when trying to open /etc/hosts in vim:
E303: Unable to open swap file for /etc/hosts, recovery impossible
What happens is this:
/etc/hosts is by default a
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 13 21:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 13 21:16, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[...]
Below is a patch which works for me, though I'm not sure if it's
complete enough to catch all cases. There's code for OS2 in os_unix.c
which I reused, plus a
On Oct 13 21:53, Yakov Lerner wrote:
On 10/13/06, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I got a report on the Cygwin mailing list that the following message
appears when trying to open /etc/hosts in vim:
E303: Unable to open swap file for /etc/hosts, recovery impossible
What
Yakov Lerner wrote:
[...]
I mean, I tried 'ls c:\windows' in cygwin and it does not work ..
strange is it issue of version of cygwin ? I saw even
weirder differences in cygwin behaviour ... fat32 vs ntfs differences...
Maybe this is because \ have a special meaning for bash or some
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:38:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Interesting enough it works in 6.4 without doing anything similar to my
patch does to os_unix.c. What's different in swap file handling between
6.4 and 7.0 so that it works in the former but doesn;t in the latter?
memline.c was
On Oct 13 22:02, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Interesting enough it works in 6.4 without doing anything similar to my
patch does to os_unix.c. What's different in swap file handling between
6.4 and 7.0 so that it works in the former but doesn;t in the latter?
Is your 6.4
On Oct 13 16:06, James Vega wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:38:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Interesting enough it works in 6.4 without doing anything similar to my
patch does to os_unix.c. What's different in swap file handling between
6.4 and 7.0 so that it works in the former
On 2006-10-13, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 13 21:53, Yakov Lerner wrote:
On 10/13/06, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I got a report on the Cygwin mailing list that the following message
appears when trying to open /etc/hosts in vim:
E303:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:34:40PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 13 16:06, James Vega wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:38:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Interesting enough it works in 6.4 without doing anything similar to my
patch does to os_unix.c. What's different in swap
Am Freitag, 13. Oktober 2006 02:16 schrieb David Fishburn:
I have taken over maintenance of the VimL exuberant tags component.
Just VimL or the hole of ctags? The ctags Patch list list [1] not been worked
on for ages. Parsers for Ada, Ruby, PHP, Haskel are Open and waiting for
integration for
On 10/13/06, Martin Krischik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ctags Patch list list [1] not been worked on for ages.
I wonder why no one has taken over development/forked this project
yet. It seems obvious that the current maintainer has given up
interest.
nikolai
On 10/13/06, Nikolai Weibull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/06, Martin Krischik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ctags Patch list list [1] not been worked on for ages.
I wonder why no one has taken over development/forked this project
yet. It seems obvious that the current maintainer has
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nikolai Weibull
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:48 PM
To: Martin Krischik
Cc: vim-dev; vim@vim.org
Subject: Re: VimL and Exuberant tags - Suggestions please
On 10/13/06, Nikolai Weibull [EMAIL
24 matches
Mail list logo
