Sorry; it's located here:
http://vim.sourceforge.net/scripts/script.php?script_id=353
> -Original Message-
> From: Halim, Salman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: 'Marc Weber'; vim-dev@vim.org
> Subject: RE: wish: allow a: in the function def
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:24 AM
> To: vim-dev@vim.org
> Subject: Re: wish: allow a: in the function def
>
> > So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo,
> > a:foo, (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw a
> So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo, a:foo,
> (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw an undefined
> variable name error if none exists. Or so.
No. I don't want to go back to VB without using Option Explicit ;)
Don't let vim find some value somewhe
> So that the name is consistent everywhere. Makes it much easier to search. I
> would appreciate this addition, too.
Example
function! Test(param)
echo a:param
endfunction
When you see param and want to know where it is used, all you have to do is
pressing * (using set hlsearch or a plugin s
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:10:20 -0500
Robert Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> > On 4/23/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
> >> function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
> >> This is currently not allowed. But it seems
On 4/25/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> Yes, that's the reason for the a: modifier. And yes, why are they
> read-only?VimScript isn't a functionaly programming language.
> Variables are mutable; arguments should be to.
Why?
Vim is a good programm
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:02:39 +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As long as function arguments are read-only, it is good to have
> > the a: modifier.
> >
> > In fact, why are they read-only, although call is by value?
>
> Yes, that's the reason fo
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:10:20 -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
> Counterwish #2: Dump VimScript and replace it with EMCAScript (maybe
> using SpiderMonkey) so that people don't need to learn a new language
> just to change the color scheme or keyboard mappings. Yes, this will
> break backwards compatibil
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull schrieb:
> On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thomas schrieb:
>
>> > So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo,
>> a:foo,
>> > (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:
On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull schrieb:
> On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thomas schrieb:
>
>> > So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo,
>> a:foo,
>> > (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw an u
On 4/24/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Besides C and descentants, no other language treats function parameters
as local variables.
What am I missing?
* You can assign to parameters in most languages.
* You don't prefix parameters in some manner in most languages.
* A parameter
Nikolai Weibull schrieb:
On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas schrieb:
> So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo,
a:foo,
> (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw an undefined
> variable name error if none exists. Or so.
Don't
Robert Lee wrote:
[...]
Counterwish #2: Dump VimScript and replace it with EMCAScript (maybe
using SpiderMonkey) so that people don't need to learn a new language
just to change the color scheme or keyboard mappings. Yes, this will
break backwards compatibility. Tough.
[...]
Don't? WTF EMCASc
On 4/24/07, Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas schrieb:
> > So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo, a:foo,
> > (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw an undefined
> > variable name err
On 4/24/07, Andy Wokula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas schrieb:
> So maybe one could make vimscript search a variable foo as l:foo, a:foo,
> (maybe also: w:foo, b:foo), s:foo, g:foo, and then throw an undefined
> variable name error if none exists. Or so.
Don't like the idea.
In Vim scri
Also would it be _recommended_ to ever use a window-local variable
without
the "w:" prefix? ... IMHO not.
Well, it would make it easier for the user to configure scripts. I'm
myself not convinced that it's a good idea to allow this for all
variables, though. But I think it could be useful in
Thomas schrieb:
Yakov Lerner schrieb:
wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
yeah, occasionally I do
:setl isk+=:
to get completion of variable names in vim scripts.
I'd like to have this for function arguments, too.
Counterwish: implement be
wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
Counterwish: implement better semantics for VimScript so that the
lookup order of variables alleviates the need for explicit
environments. Yes, this will break backwards compatibility.
I personally like both
--- Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
> > function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
> > This is currently not allowed. But it seems logical to allow it.
>
> Why should it be? Extra typi
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 4/23/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
This is currently not allowed. But it seems logical to allow it.
Why should it be? Extra typing?
Counterwish: implement better seman
On 4/23/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wish: allow a: in the function definition line:
function foo(a:line1, a:line2)
This is currently not allowed. But it seems logical to allow it.
Why should it be? Extra typing?
Counterwish: implement better semantics for VimScript so th
21 matches
Mail list logo
