Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

Marvin Renich wrote: > * Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060906 17:07]: > > > > After you do ":set nohidden" there still is one hidden buffer. Thus the > > first TestBuf() after that will work a bit different from the next ones. > > > > I do see a problem: The info about the current buffer

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

* Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060906 17:07]: > > After you do ":set nohidden" there still is one hidden buffer. Thus the > first TestBuf() after that will work a bit different from the next ones. > > I do see a problem: The info about the current buffer is displayed even > though you edi

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

Marvin Renich wrote: > In a thread started here [0] back in July I reported a problem I was > having with messages not being displayed in the right order. It was > determined during that thread that there was a difference of behavior > based on whether hidden was set or not. Buried in one of th

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

Bram, In a thread started here [0] back in July I reported a problem I was having with messages not being displayed in the right order. It was determined during that thread that there was a difference of behavior based on whether hidden was set or not. Buried in one of the later messages, I aske

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

* Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060724 05:27]: > > 'silent!' in front of ("exec b " . bufnr) works, no ? The following > :args a b > :silent! 'exec b 2' > :silent! 'exec b 1' > :echomsg "AAA" > works for me. Output from 'b #' commands is suppresses, only > "AAA" is printd.

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

* A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060723 22:23]: > Bram: 'exe "silent "' apparently does not give the same > result as ':silent exe ' (see example below). Bug or feature? > > gvim -N -u NONE > :version > > VIM - Vi IMproved 7.0 (2006 May 7, compiled Jul 23 2006 22:50:51) > Include

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

On 7/24/06, Marvin Renich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am enhancing my cyclecolor script and would like to use another buffer, but would like to do it as transparently as possible. I use bufnr(filename, 1) to create a new buffer, then save the current buffer number, switch to the new buffer, do

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

On Sun 23-Jul-06 7:09pm -0600, Marvin Renich wrote: > At this point, I see the output from exec "b" curbuf but using > :messages I can see that the echomsg did indeed display (before the > output from :b). I also tried redraw between the :b and the :echomsg. I don't have an answer for you but

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

Bram: 'exe "silent "' apparently does not give the same result as ':silent exe ' (see example below). Bug or feature? Marvin Renich wrote: * A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060723 20:48]: Marvin Renich wrote: Can someone point me to a help topic that explains this (or give an explanation)

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

* A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060723 20:48]: > Marvin Renich wrote: > >Can someone point me to a help topic that explains this (or give an > >explanation)? Is there some way to keep the output of echo (without > >changing the user's commandheight)? I've tried exec "silent! b"

Re: using hidden unlisted buffer as transparently as possible

Marvin Renich wrote: I am enhancing my cyclecolor script and would like to use another buffer, but would like to do it as transparently as possible. I use bufnr(filename, 1) to create a new buffer, then save the current buffer number, switch to the new buffer, do some things, and switch back. L