[Resending to the list.] :) On 4/27/07, Danek Duvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:35:30PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > Even though I have absolutely no authority to do so I'm going to make a > quick executive call on this. :) :)
You were supposed to agree with everything I said!! :) Let's just figure out what we can quickly come to a consensus on.
What GUI toolkit, if any > > None. This can always be added later, but adding something now would add to > maintenance headaches, and would have to be supported going forward. (Not to > mention raise hell on the discussion board) True, except that the current vim on the CCD does have a GUI (Motif), so removing the GUI could be considered a regression. Besides, it would be really nice if netbeans could use vim out of the box, rather than shipping its own, and that requires a GUI build.
A regression from what? An unsupported third party application? Keep in mind CCD is not currently a part of Solaris. No GUI. vi doesn't have the bindings, so vim won't (at first). (Correct me if I am wrong about the vi bindings) Also, as I recall netbeans runs on multiple platforms. If this is the case, shouldn't it include it's own vim?
Included language bindings > > Every language that is either part of Solaris now or are included in > /usr/sfw. I would also include those languages that are approved for > inclusion. ( Like Ruby http://rubyforge.org/projects/vim-ruby/ ) Yeah, probably. If vim goes in the WOS, it can't depend on anything not in the WOS, unless those dependencies are dynamic, so currently Ruby and Scheme would be out, but Python and perl in.
Agreed, as long as there is a commitment to add and update static language binding as they are rulled into Solaris. (Until such time as the dynamic binding goes into mainline)
Dynamic language bindings > > Not now (This could be a future goal once http://www.moolenaar.net/ has > signed off on it) Yep. > Names for ex and view > ex and view. Just keep em in /usr/sfw Except that we're trying really hard to get rid of /usr/sfw. And they don't belong in /usr/gnu. We could just not ship them, and make people use "vim -e" and "vim -R"
Either the flags (that are already supported with vi, or "exm|vimex" and "viewm|vimview". (This of course would not be a problem if we can get approval to ditch vi. That is not a battle I am personally up to fighting, but I have no issue with this.)
Scrap existing VI > > You will have a near impossible time getting approval for this. Not necessarily. Vim has a pretty good compatibility mode, and I bet that one could persuade the ARC that vi's interfaces aren't sufficiently interesting to merit precise compatibility, as long as there's major feature compatibility. Sort of how we passed off Mozilla as a Netscape replacement ...
You'd have to verify that .exrc is 100% compatible. I am not sure you would go about doing that, other than a man page verification, which might not be 100% accurate. (Otherwise I am all for this). Besides, there isn't a name conflict between vi and vim. (You aren't replacing tar with gtar for example. Mozilla as a Netscape replacement was fine, as Netscape development had ceased.) Danek
-brian
_______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
