Replacing by This seems good:
\ networks: { *['' .. string(currnetwork) ]*:
foo.undercursor.variable }
Le dimanche 6 décembre 2020 à 19:27:47 UTC+1, Ni Va a écrit :
> Is this notation below in red unavailable since recent Vim commits (upper
> to 8.2.2194) ?
>
>
Is this notation below in red unavailable since recent Vim commits (upper
to 8.2.2194) ?
s:higherInfos[apiFileLocation] =
\{ blockname:
\ { totalnetworks: totalnetworks,
\ blocknumber: blocknumber,
\ networks: { *string(currnetwork)*: foo.undercursor.variable }
\}
> I'm not a cython or python expert but I'm working on a project that has
> this kind of code.
> It was just a reflection in the sense that for me vim9 script is
> precompiled as a cython and not as a python.
>
> The comparison for me has meaning between two pre-compiled languages. Out
>
I'm not a cython or python expert but I'm working on a project that has
this kind of code.
It was just a reflection in the sense that for me vim9 script is
precompiled as a cython and not as a python.
The comparison for me has meaning between two pre-compiled languages. Out
of mistake on my
On Fr, 04 Dez 2020, Ni Va wrote:
> Why Benchmark does not compare Vim9 to cython instead of python ?
Because nobody has done it. If you can provide benchmarking results,
feel free to open a PR with those additional informations.
Best,
Christian
--
Frage: Welche Hardwareplattform eignet
Why Benchmark does not compare Vim9 to cython instead of python ?
Le jeudi 3 décembre 2020 à 17:48:20 UTC+1, Dominique Pelle a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:55 PM Ni Va wrote:
>
> > Do profiler show performance gain for vimscript migrated in vim9 ?
>
> You can see vim9 benchmarks at:
>
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:10 AM Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Oh, you mean using single quotes without the brackets works. Double
> quotes too. That is simpler. Somehow I didn't find this in the
> specification. I see questions on stack overflow from more people who
> are confused about this.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:55 PM Ni Va wrote:
> Do profiler show performance gain for vimscript migrated in vim9 ?
You can see vim9 benchmarks at:
https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/README_VIM9.md
That README_VIM9.md file contains the sources of the
benchmarks, so you can run them yourself
> It's okay with this new notation and thank you for less chars as backslash.
>
> Do profiler show performance gain for vimscript migrated in vim9 ?
>
> g:fzf_colors =3D { fg: ['fg', 'Normal'],
> bg: ["bg", "Normal"],
> hl: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
> info: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
> border: ["fg",
Filipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 5:34:04 AM UTC-6 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > Looks like your problem is with the "fg+" key, the plus character is not
> > allowed in a literal key. You can use the Javascript notation, using
> > square brackets:
>
> ['fg+']: ["fg",
Vocabulary pedant writing here.
Though the meaning is obvious in this context, "depreciate" means to lose
value, e.g. when a new car is driven off the lot, its value depreciates
25% or so.
To express disapproval of something, "deprecate" it.
There's just an iota of difference between
Okay thank you for feedback.
if I were joking I would say that all it takes is an advanced substitute to
migrate the vimscript dictionaries to vim9. In my plugins, certainly not in
vim-airline :)
Le jeudi 3 décembre 2020 à 14:00:26 UTC+1, cbl...@256bit.org a écrit :
>
> On Do, 03 Dez 2020, Ni
On Do, 03 Dez 2020, Ni Va wrote:
> It's okay with this new notation and thank you for less chars as backslash.
>
> Do profiler show performance gain for vimscript migrated in vim9 ?
You can profile a vim9 script version and a legacy vimscript version.
That's what I did with the switch on
It's okay with this new notation and thank you for less chars as backslash.
Do profiler show performance gain for vimscript migrated in vim9 ?
g:fzf_colors = { fg: ['fg', 'Normal'],
bg: ["bg", "Normal"],
hl: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
info: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
border: ["fg", "Ignore"],
prompt: ["fg",
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 5:34:04 AM UTC-6 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Looks like your problem is with the "fg+" key, the plus character is not
> allowed in a literal key. You can use the Javascript notation, using
> square brackets:
...
['fg+']: ["fg", "CursorLine", "CursorColumn",
> This, as a bypass, seems to work:
>
> g:fzf_colors = { fg: ['fg', 'Normal'],
>\ bg: ["bg", "Normal"],
>\ hl: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
>\ info:["fg", "IncSearch"],
>\ border: ["fg", "Ignore"],
>\ prompt:
This, as a bypass, seems to work:
g:fzf_colors = { fg: ['fg', 'Normal'],
\ bg: ["bg", "Normal"],
\ hl: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
\ info:["fg", "IncSearch"],
\ border: ["fg", "Ignore"],
\ prompt: ["fg", "Comment"],
Hi,
Since Vim.8.2.2082, it appears that this notation of dict' keys used for
example in FZF plugin is depreciated.
g:fzf_colors = { fg: ['fg', 'Normal'],
\ bg: ["bg", "Normal"],
\ hl: ["fg", "IncSearch"],
\ fg+: ["fg", "CursorLine",
18 matches
Mail list logo
