Re: Less optimal HTML output?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Yongwei Wu wrote: > > I think this is dependent on the browser configuration. In my case, > the IE font size with 1 em is apparent bigger than other cases. In > other browsers (with or without 1 em) or IE without 1 em, I get the > standard 10

Re: vim: thesaurus

I have written a plugin recently to use multiple backends for thesaurus checking and replacing. Currently i have only written 3 backends(thesaurus.com, mthesaur.txt and datamuse.com) for it and the checking is sequential, stopping at the first successful query to save query time. I wonder what

Re: Less optimal HTML output?

On 13 April 2016 at 00:04, Ben Fritz wrote: > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:44:00 AM UTC-5, Yongwei Wu wrote: >> I noticed something weird recently in the VIM HTML output (CSS on). It >> is probably there for quite some time now, but I checked the HTML >> source only

Re: Escaping in command line completion

2016-04-12 23:54 GMT+03:00 : > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 4:51:38 PM UTC-4, nwt...@gmail.com wrote: >> I have a set of files, whose names contain various punctuation characters >> like # and $. E.g. FOO#BAR and BIZ$BAZ. >> >> When editing a file via ":e" the command line

Re: Escaping in command line completion

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 4:51:38 PM UTC-4, nwt...@gmail.com wrote: > I have a set of files, whose names contain various punctuation characters > like # and $. E.g. FOO#BAR and BIZ$BAZ. > > When editing a file via ":e" the command line completion works fine for file > names with #. Typing

Escaping in command line completion

I have a set of files, whose names contain various punctuation characters like # and $. E.g. FOO#BAR and BIZ$BAZ. When editing a file via ":e" the command line completion works fine for file names with #. Typing ":e FOO#" shows me files matching that pattern. The # is escaped by vim

Re: RFE: support POSIX standard and developing RE's

On Di, 12 Apr 2016, L. A. Walsh wrote: > Christian Brabandt wrote: > >There is https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/99 > >You might want to check, if this works for you. > >If vim supported posix extended RE's, then, like, say grep, > it could also support Perl RE's, from the PCRE library.

Re: Regex failure in macro def. in Vim 7.4.580

Hi L.! On Di, 12 Apr 2016, L. A. Walsh wrote: > > I have a bunch of lines in a file that start: > - > >when (/users[^@]*\@.*domain\.com/) { > ... > --- > > I have tried defining a macro to replace the "when (/" with "m{". > > It works interactively, but not in a macro (my

Regex failure in macro def. in Vim 7.4.580

I have a bunch of lines in a file that start: - when (/users[^@]*\@.*domain\.com/) { ... --- I have tried defining a macro to replace the "when (/" with "m{". It works interactively, but not in a macro (my magic level is set to 'magic' -- i.e. default). I.e. in interactive:

Re: RFE: support POSIX standard and developing RE's

shawn wilson wrote: Instead of implementing one or another regex type in core, it might be better to know about and hook into libs for their regex engines. For example, libperl for perl's engine when +perl or libpcre as another option. IDK you can do the same with python, I think you can

Re: RFE: support POSIX standard and developing RE's

Christian Brabandt wrote: There is https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/99 You might want to check, if this works for you. If vim supported posix extended RE's, then, like, say grep, it could also support Perl RE's, from the PCRE library. Perl supports the "/x" to ignore whitespace for

Re: Less optimal HTML output?

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:44:00 AM UTC-5, Yongwei Wu wrote: > I noticed something weird recently in the VIM HTML output (CSS on). It > is probably there for quite some time now, but I checked the HTML > source only recently. > > * { font-size: 1em; } (in CSS) > > I do not see the point of

Less optimal HTML output?

I noticed something weird recently in the VIM HTML output (CSS on). It is probably there for quite some time now, but I checked the HTML source only recently. * { font-size: 1em; } (in CSS) I do not see the point of this. It does not seem to affect the result in Chrome, but it makes the font